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> <3E09530E.9308C136@bigpond.net.au> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: What's going on in Australia?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:12:03 +1100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:02:28 EST
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
"John Larkin" wrote in
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 09:14:02 +1100, Mike Harding
> >On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:08:58 -0800, John Larkin
> > wrote:
> >>On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 06:41:50 GMT, onestone
> >>>> So how is internet piblication "cowardly"?
> >>>If they published in Australia they could and would be sued here. The
> >>>same for any country they physically published in. What I consider
> >>>cowardice is that by using the internet they assumed they could not be
> >>>sued outside of the country where the publication was posted, ie the
> >>>friendly and biased USA legal system. No case law existed before the
> >>>Victorian court decision.
> >>So, you contend that it is cowardly to host a web site in your own
> >>country, and post items there in accordance with local law?
> >>If an editorial in The London Times criticizes a genocidal tyrant in
> >>an obscure tropical hellhole, is the tyrant entitled to collect
> >>damages because the act is 'slander' in his own country?
> >Surely the basic difference is that The Times is not published
> >in said obscure tropical hell hole but when you publish on the
> >net you publish right across the world.
> But the Times is published on the web. The problem is that anyone in
> the world can access web pages. If those pages are offensive or
> illegal by local standards, the reader may have legal redress in his
> country, even if the posting is perfectly legal in the country of
** How does this drivel relates to the Gutnick v Dow Jones case ?
Not at all.
The published words about Mr Gutnik constitute "gross defamation"
since they make him out to be a criminal. That is an *illegal* thing to do
in any country. All Mr Gutnik has won the right to do is have his case heard
in a Victorian court rather than a US one.
If he gets a judgement against Dow Jones it can be enforced in a US
court later since Australia and the US have such an arrangement in place in
A person without his considerable financial resources could not get
to first base with any of this. They would have to cop any defamation some
US internet assholes decided to dish out.
> The recent ElcomSoft case is a perfect example:
** Of an entirely different nature.
> a Russian programmer wrote a program which was legal in Russia,
** Since they recognise no copyrights.
>but he was nabbed and tried in the USA for violating the DMCA laws.
> Luckily, the jury was smarter than the US Congress
** More idiocy - the two are not even faintly related.
> and found him innocent.
** There is no such thing. Only charge not proved on the evidence.
John Larkin has a hidden agenda going here - maybe he would like to
own up what his personal interest is.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup