From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Jan 29 2003 - 01:35:41 MST
Brett writes
> The Onion is obviously a farcical publication aimed
> at stirring and joshing rather than reporting. Fair enough.
>
> But given it actually includes photos (or digital likenesses) of Bush
> and purports at least superficially to quote him, I wonder, in light of
> a recent High Court decision on internet publication and defamation
> in Australia whether The Onion and its ilk might be in danger of sticking
> their neck out too far and becoming actionable under defamation (libel)
> law. Probably not. They probably concentrate mostly on pollies that
> are US or national leaders and therefore deemed big enough to look
> after themselves. Good chance the Aussie defamation laws might have
> gone out on a limb of their own too.
Laws against defamation and libel are something I know very
little about. Why do they need to exist? Clearly if someone
writes anything untrue about someone else, suit may be brought
(at least in the U.S.) with a fair chance of success. What
more is really needed anyway?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST