This just happened today:

Legal counsel Martin Bennett has just won his client $30,000 in damages and costs, an apology, and undertakings from a Colac man that he won't post any more defamatory comments.

''There has been an increasing proliferation of internet chat sites where people feel free to hide their identities and make defamatory comments ...." Mr Bennet said in a statement released after the case in the Supreme Court of Western Australia was resolved.

www.smh.com.au/technology/cyber-poisonpenner-hunted-down-and-sued-20100224-p3n7.html

Mr Bennett has launched two more cases. Both are pending before the WA Supreme Court.

I think the above case involved corporate defamation.. all the same it is long overdue that the idea the internerd is there to live out fantasies as a bully or general all round orsool is nearing an end.

The internerd is for wind/wave info n porn - stoopid. Now play nice.

Can get a bit heavy at times, there is no need to get agressive.

Cant imagine it getting that bad here, can it??

Who? "martian "bannet" sack licking bottom feeder lawyer what next mr bannet (ball slapper)gona take 12 yearold to court for playn a videogame.

This comment to the article pretty much sums it up for me:

"What's up with the whining about 'privacy' and 'free speech?'

To my knowledge laws on defamation have not changed signficantly in recent times, so really this is simply a way of enforcing a current statute. Anyways, taking court action is expensive with an uncertain outcome, so only the really bad cases are going to wind up in the courts anyway.

Funny how some people equate 'free speech' with 'being able to say whatever I want, whenevr I want, in whatever forum I want be it true / false / malicious / slanderous'. Note to these people - the internet is a public forum. Say whatever you want in private - but when you are in a public space the law of the land applies. Simple really."

-Nick

Laurie

Everytime somebody rolls over at the slightest hint of legal provocation, Ie: this dip jit:

http://users.dhp.com/~verbal/laurence_godfrey/godfrey.html

it erodes what little right we have how days of telling it how it is. Here is some inspiration:

www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-06/mf_hiroyuki

Ja

If this is anything to go by, in another story published today, moderators can be responsible for content that appears on their site.

"A court in Milan on Wednesday convicted three Google Italy executives over an internet video showing a handicapped teenager being bullied - an unprecedented ruling that the US internet search giant vowed to appeal."

www.theage.com.au/technology/google-executives-convicted-over-posted-video-20100225-p414.html

oliver said...

If this is anything to go by, in another story published today, moderators can be responsible for content that appears on their site.

"A court in Milan on Wednesday convicted three Google Italy executives over an internet video showing a handicapped teenager being bullied - an unprecedented ruling that the US internet search giant vowed to appeal."

www.theage.com.au/technology/google-executives-convicted-over-posted-video-20100225-p414.html

I heard about that google thing, ridiculous IMO.

I think George W Bush actually made a law against 'e-annoyance' - he certainly kept his eye on the important stuff during his time LOL.

A few years back a chick in the US got sued for $11,000,000 for hating on someone on a forum and making up a story about someones sister being dead or something.

ppl get busted for downloading movies and stuff too, I think the movie companies hit some chick up for $15,000,000 for uploading/downloading, she could have taken a $3,000 fine like most people did, but for some stupid reason thought she would argue it in court and got made an example of.