** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
** This thread discusses the Content article: The Death of Privacy **
0
** This thread discusses the Content article: The Death of Privacy **
0
For those with a spare 15 minutes Court Opinion including Dissent does include a comment on VoiceMail.Thanks for pointing that out. I did look at the opinion before writing the article, but I obviously did not read it carefully enough. Then again, what does "after those messages were delivered" mean? Delivered to my voice mailbox? Or, delivered to my ear and then deleted from my voice mailbox? If it's the latter then I think that I that I am going to have to be much faster at getting to my voice mail. Then again, it's just a point of curiosity for me since, being in Canada, I'm protected (unprotected?) by some completely different law. I should probably do some research on that, but the weather is much too nice to do that research now--maybe when the snow flies.
a case of a 3rd country where the laws will be appliedI know that it's a bit picky, but actually it's not a 3rd country. I only skimmed the page that you provide the link for, but unless I missed something, the appellant, Dow Jones & Company Inc., is in the U.S. and the respondent -- the person who claims he was defamed -- lives in Australia. The respondent launched the suit in the Australia, so it is a 1st or 2nd country depending on which frame of reference you take. dave400 also said:
If I understand correctly in the US there is a protection of Free Speech.Yes, and I believe that they also protect free speech in Australia. But, while I'm not an expert on U.S. law (or any country's laws, for that matter), I do think that the U.S. has laws regarding defamation of character as they apparently do in Australia. If so, had the respondent been living in the U.S., he likely would have brought suit there if he felt that he had been defamed. The differences between the two countries' laws may affect the outcome of the case, but I really don't see the fact that the respondent was able to sue Dow Jones in Australia as an issue given that he resides there and Dow Jones made the allegedly defamatory article freely available to the respondents friends, family and other compatriots in Australia.
Comment