Comments on: Anonymity, blog commenting and defamation

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:21:35 +0000

I really don’t understand why no one has taken advantage of the uniform changes to the Crimes Act signed off by all States in 2004. Example: take a look at S.529 of the NSW Crimes Act. It says that the publication of material with the intent to injure another person – or with reckless disregard to its effect – constitutes teh offence of Criminal Defamation, and carries a penalty of 3 yrs imprisonment. The defense of ‘innocent publication’ has been removed, and ‘public interest’ is irrelevant if the intent is to injure. Accordingly, the editors of any website, newspaper or TV publisher who is placed on notice that information is untrue or designed to injure another person, is guilty of a criminal offence. Police MUST accept a complaint and give it a report number – whether they do anything about it or not is another story.

By: Mercurius

Mercurius — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:03:38 +0000

Somebody’s birthday approaching, is it?

By: Yobbo

Yobbo — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:34:02 +0000

It’s funny, but I thought the big deal in this case was “40-something” rather than “skank”. Surely as a model a false rumour that you are over the hill is going to be more damaging than someone just calling you names.

By: tssk

tssk — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:22:40 +0000

Mercurius @ 25, totally agree. Freedom of speech comes with a range of responsibilities. Also some trolls and shouters don’t realise that freedom of speech also means that the audience might decide to debate your point of view. Or applaud it. Or ignore it.

In a way the Town Hell meetings are almost like a physical personification of the worst aspects of internet debating gone wrong right down to the invocation of Godwin.

By: Socratease

Socratease — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:08:37 +0000

^ Link problem?

>>> Error 404 – Not Found Oh no! You’re looking for something which just isn’t here!

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:58:28 +0000

Update: Kate Harding at The Guardian's Comment is Free.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:29:25 +0000

Update: Legal Eagle.

By: Socratease

Socratease — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:33:24 +0000

“Is the only solution to be immune to legal action, such as to not own any assets?”

There’s always the workhouse for the impecunious.

By: Mercurius

Mercurius — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:22:16 +0000

I actually think this is a positive development.

Freedom of speech is not infringed by accountability for said speech.

By: Aurelius

Aurelius — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:49:53 +0000

Is the only solution to be immune to legal action, such as to not own any assets? Fortunately for one with a big mouth and strong opinions, I fall into such a category but I imagine many others do not.