The Succeeder Stronghold

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:26 pm

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]You'd probably know better than him...

[/QUOTE]

*files a defamation claim*

The evidence is in writing, and it is:
a) Not true
b) Not in the public interest to know

Account your way out of that

.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:27 pm

Files defence of "fair comment" on Tony's behalf

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:28 pm

Is it, or is it not, in the public interest?

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:29 pm

If the defence of "fair comment" succeeds, then certainly

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:30 pm

[QUOTE=dj_venom]*files a defamation claim*

The evidence is in writing, and it is:
a) Not true
b) Not in the public interest to know

Account your way out of that

.[/QUOTE]

*Files a motion to have all of Mr. Venom's motions thrown out on account of him not having a license to pratice law outside of Australia*

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:30 pm

Will there be a gag order next?

@DJV, any last questions about Pseudocode, as I'll be going after those.

@Tony, add 'or in Aus' to that. :laugh:

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:31 pm

*Tony's comment becomes void, because I have no license to practice inside Australia*:laugh:

However, even if fair comment is true, there must be a need for the public to know. Otherwise, my claim succeeds.

@Rav: I hope not, otherwise I'm stuffed

.

Thanks for all your help Rav, it's invaluable, it'll be the first time I've done a correct Pseudo (actually, it won't be, I'll find some way to stuff it up).

Thanks mate, seeya later.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:32 pm

[QUOTE=dj_venom]*Tony's comment becomes void, because I have no license to practice inside Australia*:laugh:[/QUOTE]

Ooh! Sue him for misleading the court!

Okay, see everyone later. Shame I'll be missing the outcome of this...

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:33 pm

[QUOTE=dj_venom]*Tony's comment becomes void, because I have no license to practice inside Australia*:laugh:

However, even if fair comment is true, there must be a need for the public to know. Otherwise, my claim succeeds.[/QUOTE]

See, now we wouldn't have had to go through all of that if you actually knew some accountant jokes...

*Sues*

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:33 pm

[QUOTE=dj_venom]
However, even if fair comment is true, there must be a need for the public to know. Otherwise, my claim succeeds.[/QUOTE]

Funny place, Australia. If it is fair comment it is true and cannot be defamation

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:37 pm

No, but it must be in the public interest. So if I were to go around saying you were foolish, even if it is true, then it would be defamation. However, if you were a public figure, such as a successful movie star, and I went around saying you were foolish, if it is true, then it cannot be laballed as defamation.

I think they were thinking about removing the claus about public interest, not sure if they ended up doing it though.

I wasn't misleading the court, I never claimed to have a license.

I could find some, but that would require effort

.

*hides assets in a secret bank account*

I'm bankrupt, sorry, you get nothing.

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:40 pm

[QUOTE=dj_venom]No, but it must be in the public interest. So if I were to go around saying you were foolish, even if it is true, then it would be defamation. However, if you were a public figure, such as a successful movie star, and I went around saying you were foolish, if it is true, then it cannot be laballed as defamation.

I think they were thinking about removing the claus about public interest, not sure if they ended up doing it though.

I wasn't misleading the court, I never claimed to have a license.

I could find some, but that would require effort

.

*hides assets in a secret bank account*

I'm bankrupt, sorry, you get nothing.[/QUOTE]

*Is unfazed by DJV's bankruptcy, having successfully defended accountants everywhere and taken another potshot at lawyers everywhere*

*... With Fiona's help*

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:41 pm

Serious question. Is this related to a privacy law or something like that? We don't have that here, and I don't think the public interest is relevant to this. Interesting to the public, perhaps

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:43 pm

This is news to me as well... It's entirely possible that DJV truly knows nothing about the law, however.

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:44 pm

Not sure, but that is the law relating to defamation. But I have a feeling they changed it this year...

I'll look into that.

Oh, and it's not just Australia that's weird, our state is too. We are the only government in Australia to have only one parliament. We simply have the Legislative Assembly, whereas the other states have a Legislative Council, and the Federal is House of Reps and the Senate.

They voted themselves out of existence in 1922. So we are uniquely unicameral.

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:49 pm

I'm gonna go to Blockbuster and rent a movie for tonight because I don't really feel like doing anything but lying in bed. Goodnight Fiona and DJV!

*looks pointedly at Fiona*
Don't hurt him too badly, alright?

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:50 pm

[url=""]Here[/url] is an article relating to it.

Defamation law currently differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in Australia and moves towards uniform practice have been slow. Most concepts in defamation law are found in all of the jurisdictions but application varies, with resultant forum shopping and - as noted on the preceding page of this profile - considerable uncertainty for journalists, media organisations and other entities.

In Australia defamation action is essentially concerned with damage to reputation, rather than publication being untrue or an invasion of a plaintiff's privacy. There has been disagreement about the appropriate balance between free speech and protection of reputations.

If you can understand that, the second paragraph refers to the public interest.

Later in the article, it states how as of 2004 there is no Commonwealth Law, however, in 2005 the District Attorney proposed a Nation-wide law, and I do believe that removes the public interest claue.

I'll keep looking for this.

Okay, goodbye Tony, nice talking with you. And now I know you're an accountant

.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:50 pm

*looks puzzled*

Night Tony

@ DJ. Interesting. Have there been cases which hinged on the question of whether a person who has been "insulted" by a fair comment has a reputation to lose in that area?

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:51 pm

*shrugs* Must be the caffeine...

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:54 pm

Basically, it's about whether or not it is in the public interest to know, then whether it is true.

As such, if you can argue and win that it is not in the public interest, then the validity of the statement is irrelevant, as it dismisses all other claims.

However, I think that has been changed now, and it is whether or not it is true.

So now it's just about arguing about how much truth the statement holds, and whether it was a 'fair comment'.