Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #14

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
CaseClosed said:
So, how long has the "internet" been around for access by normal households? 20 years or so? It's time that the Laws covering social media outlets like this forum and FB, for example, where adjusted to reflect that these places are like "holding a conversation" with "friends" in the comfort of your own 4 walls, where Freedom of Speech and privacy should be respected. Is there a precedent somewhere?
Click to expand...

Just wondering if you could provide a link for the Freedom of Speech aspect?
 
CaseClosed - The difference is that gossip amongst people in a private setting is very different to putting something in print in the public domain that will be there forever.
 
Petro said:
CaseClosed - The difference is that gossip amongst people in a private setting is very different to putting something in print in the public domain that will be there forever.
Click to expand...

I fully understand that, however, the internet is now part of our lives, either business or private, and there should be some changes to the Laws covering this aspect of modern society, in my humble very personal view :)
 
Watsonian Institute said:
I agree that truth and justice are not interchangeable terms in the legal system.

I also believe courts will not refer to the expertise of internet contributors when making their rulings.

I would urge you to consider why people pay hefty fees for the services of lawyers who specialise in defamation. If it was as easy as tagging an IMO on to a statement, that would certainly put many legal eagles out of work. It is great to see you have been learning the finer things from a learned contributor. However I would urge caution when making assumptions about *any* person's background and authority to speak on topics on the internet.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Including yourself? Or are you a registered professional on this site? You obviously think you know better than Hawkins.

Thank you.
 
Watsonian Institute said:
I agree that truth and justice are not interchangeable terms in the legal system.

I also believe courts will not refer to the expertise of internet contributors when making their rulings.

I would urge you to consider why people pay hefty fees for the services of lawyers who specialise in defamation. If it was as easy as tagging an IMO on to a statement, that would certainly put many legal eagles out of work. It is great to see you have been learning the finer things from a learned contributor. However I would urge caution when making assumptions about *any* person's background and authority to speak on topics on the internet.

Cheers
Click to expand...
WATSONIAN INSTITUTE: Thank you again for a valued contribution. On the topic of posing IMO or MOO etc many posters on these threads have asked for clarification from the Moderators/Owners of this internet forum. There as been confusion and the question has been avoided due to the forum being owned and operated our of America. Moderators on this forum encourage posters to state IMO or MOO after their posts. Maybe this does not offer protection to Australians judging by your message here.
Are you able to clarify this further please?
 
Watsonian Institute said:
I agree that truth and justice are not interchangeable terms in the legal system.

I also believe courts will not refer to the expertise of internet contributors when making their rulings.

I would urge you to consider why people pay hefty fees for the services of lawyers who specialise in defamation. If it was as easy as tagging an IMO on to a statement, that would certainly put many legal eagles out of work. It is great to see you have been learning the finer things from a learned contributor. However I would urge caution when making assumptions about *any* person's background and authority to speak on topics on the internet.

Cheers
Click to expand...

If this were the case, every time someone wrote anything on the internet, there would be a defammation suit.
Sorry, but I don't quite understand ... are you only on this site to continually inform us that we don't have a right to voice our opinion?
If we didn't, then I'm sure that sites like this would not even exist. They have been around for an awful long time, and we have been told that we need to write IMO in our posts so that we are not misunderstood.
 
Fuskier said:
WATSONIAN INSTITUTE: Thank you again for a valued contribution. On the topic of posing IMO or MOO etc many posters on these threads have asked for clarification from the Moderators/Owners of this internet forum. There as been confusion and the question has been avoided due to the forum being owned and operated our of America. Moderators on this forum encourage posters to state IMO or MOO after their posts. Maybe this does not offer protection to Australians judging by your message here.
Are you able to clarify this further please?
Click to expand...

There has been a variety of links on this topic provided in this thread - they can be accessed if you click on my name and go directly to my posts. If anyone has trouble locating the links, I'm happy to repost.

Cheers
 
Lol, Just looked up what Watsonians latin words mean:- "Anulos qui animum ostendunt omnes gestemus" = "Lets all wear mood rings" :)
 
Watsonian Institute said:
There has been a variety of links on this topic provided in this thread - they can be accessed if you click on my name and go directly to my posts. If anyone has trouble locating the links, I'm happy to repost.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Thankyou, but I prefer to read information in layman terms.
 
Watsonian Institute said:
There has been a variety of links on this topic provided in this thread - they can be accessed if you click on my name and go directly to my posts. If anyone has trouble locating the links, I'm happy to repost.

Cheers
Click to expand...
In the interest of sorting this problem for Australian posters using an American owned and operated internet forum site, could you please post the links for our information.
 
Nads said:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...llisons-murderer/story-e6freoof-1226368676196

Today's news.
Click to expand...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...llisons-murderer/story-e6freoof-1226368676196

POLICE are questioning western suburbs residents with cars similar to those driven by Gerard Baden-Clay about their movements on the night the real-estate identity's wife disappeared.

The Courier-Mail understands one local woman, who owns a silver Holden Captiva, was questioned at the weekend on whether she had driven through the Kenmore roundabout at the intersection of Moggill and Brookfield roads on Thursday, April 19 - the night Mrs Baden-Clay was last seen alive.

In an apparent bid to clarify reported sightings and rule out various vehicles in the area, the woman was also asked whether she had recently pulled her car over to the side of Mt Crosby Rd.
 
Watsonian Institute said:
Fuskier, the point is that that statement is actually incorrect. People may wish it to be otherwise, but in all truth, the only defence you could use is honest opinion and fair comment. However, people can't just add IMO or JMO to a statement and be covered, and it is very concerning to see that people still seem to hold fast to this idea, despite warnings.

There are very specific underlying facts that need to be proved in order to use the appropriate defamation defence.

Here is another link that might be useful: https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html

Cheers
Click to expand...

Hi WI :)

Are you here to save us from defamation actions out of the goodness of your heart? It is awfully kind of you :)
 
Apart from the above discussions about the Law being totally off topic (and should really be discussed in the chat room), Hawkins has the right to whatever views he wants to have. Why are we discussing him? It's against TOR.
 
Fuskier said:
In the interest of sorting this problem for Australian posters using an American owned and operated internet forum site, could you please post the links for our information.
Click to expand...

Under Australian law, it only matters where the material was viewed. The jurisdiction is the area that is most likely to result in the greatest harm to the plaintiff. This is a link to a case example (Gutnik vs Dow Jones & Co) that highlights this: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2004/26.html

I hope this helps.

Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 123 more.
Total: 4,065 (members: 124, guests: 3,941)

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
3,941
Total visitors
4,065
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,631
Messages
17,972,164
Members
228,845
Latest member
Sally43
Back
Top