[AusNOG] Alumina vs AINS Update

[Curtis Bayne]

AFAIK Australian law makes no difference between libel and slander - they are both covered equally under the Defamation Act 2005.

Truth is not a defence in and of itself, the legal test also adds the condition "for public benefit". There is also opinion/fair comment as a mitigation.

Defamation is not "illegal" -  it is a civil tort - and therefore the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

I am not a lawyer, my information should not be construed as advice. Assume everything I just said is wrong until you are advised otherwise by a qualified professional.

The fine people at Minter Ellison however ARE qualified in this regard and I can reccomend their services, regardless of which side of the courtroom you happen to be sitting. :)

Sent from my HTC Touch Pro

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben McGinnes <ben at adversary.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2010 2:13 AM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Alumina vs AINS Update

On 15/12/10 1:44 AM, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but a) How can the *General Manager*
> distance themselves from their company's commercial decisions? and b)
> I've seen no defamation here, only a recounting of events as Skeeve has
> seen them?  IANAL, but recounting facts is not defamation?

The truth is a defence now, but it wasn't for a long time.  Plus it
would be libel, not defamation because it is written and persistent
(i.e. the archives of the list will remain online indefinitely).

Besides, Skeeve's current post just says that Mr. Raams was the
spokesperson in this case.  Since Mr. Raams has already confirmed he
discussed this case with the AFP and others, I don't see how Skeeve's
post from a fw hours ago is either libellous or defamatory.


Regards,
Ben