From: "Phil Allison"
References: <3E08564F.F1FFF559@bigpond.net.au> <4N5O9.9525$jM5.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: What's going on in Australia?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:22:36 +1100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:13:06 EST
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
> On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 23:39:21 +0000,
> John Woodgate ,
> In Newsgroup: alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,
> Article: ,
> Entitled: "Re: What's going on in Australia?",
> Wrote the following:
> |I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman
> |wrote (in ) about 'What's going on in
> |Australia?', on Wed, 25 Dec 2002:
> |> despite the fact that the "facts"
> |>alleged expose Mr Gutnick to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
> |Not true. That would be malicious, and would not be defensible. You can
> |say (if it is true) that 'Mr. X has been a director of a string of
> |failed companies that lost investors millions, and is now under
> |investigation by the SEC.' but to say 'Mr. X is a rogue, a liar and a
> |cheat.' is malicious and indefensible.
> In the US, if the "target" is a "public figure", there is no "malice".
** Huh? A few posts back you said that proof of malice was required
in case of public figures.
BTW Clint Eastwood has just filed a $US 17 mil action against
the publishers of a biography that contains some defamatory stuff about him
when a teenager.
** Seems you have as little regard for the truth as most libellers.