[AusNOG] Alumina vs AINS Update

[Dale Clapperton]

(At the risk of reigniting this accursed thread - please god don't do
it...)
(Also, the usual disclaimers are incorporated here by reference as if
set forth in full)

At common law, there used to be a distinction between libel and slander
(not defamation).  This distinction has been abolished in all
jurisdictions by the uniform defamation laws (see e.g.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/da200599/s7.html) ,
and whether the publication is of a transient or permanent nature, there
is a single tort of "defamation" (see e.g.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/da200599/s6.html).

The situation concerning truth as a defence is somewhat more
complicated.  Truth has, so far as I am aware (and without doing any
research), historically been a defence in all states and territories,
but before the national uniform defamation laws kicked in, some
states/territories required that it was true, *and* that the publication
was for the public benefit (i.e. truth alone was not sufficient)
(Queensland was in the 2nd category).

The requirement for public benefit was criticised by some as making it
too easy for people to bring SLAPP-style defamation actions.  Now that
it has been abolished, it has been criticised as facilitating invasions
of privacy.  If public benefit was a requirement, it would be defamatory
to publish to the world at large that "X cheats on his wife" even if it
were true, if X was a private individual and there was no public benefit
in publishing the same.  This has been an interesting argument to watch
because often the people arguing in favour of free speech are the same
people arguing in favour of privacy rights.

Dale

-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Ben McGinnes
Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2010 1:14 AM
To: 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).


[truncated by DC]