I would have thought that competence and trustworthiness are matters of opinion. I'm not so sure about honesty. However, the judge seems to have ruled against the defendant on all three.
> I would have thought that competence and trustworthiness are matters of opinion. > I'm not so sure about honesty. However, the judge seems to have ruled against > the defendant on all three.
If a defendant is raising the defence of substantial truth, then they have to prove that their allegation was substantially true. The court can't just say "well, it's a matter of opinion", otherwise you'd see allegations of incompetence and untrustworthiness flying through the ether all the time. The defendant really didn't provide any evidence to support his position. Indeed, he seems to have had little understanding of what might be evidence.
If he'd employed a laywer, he'd have been told to settle for sure. As it is, he's up for costs as well, which could easily come to more than the damages already awarded against him.
"You have cheated me and behaved cheaply. You and your generation will suffer for this sin." "During the hearing, he asserted his present belief that the defamatory matter was true, doing so in the teeth of the uncontradicted evidence of its falsity. I am satisfied that his allegations were groundless, and were the product of fantasy fuelled by enduring ill-will towards the plaintiff, and his desire to discredit her and bring her down." Reads much like the usual suspects in aus.politics :-)
> I would have thought that competence and trustworthiness are matters of > opinion.
** And this is the whole point of defamation law.
An individual's good reputation is a very valuable thing and not allowed to be casually destroyed by anyone who happens to hold a negative opinion of them.
It is quite irrelevant that those opinions may be honestly held or have justification in the mind of the holder - once they are " published " in a way that harms the other party, defamation has occurred.
Defences are available, but in the case above none them applied.
The defendant naively believed he was allowed to express his opinions of the school principal any way he chose.
>> I would have thought that competence and trustworthiness are matters >> of opinion.
> ** And this is the whole point of defamation law.
> An individual's good reputation is a very valuable thing and not > allowed to be casually destroyed by anyone who happens to hold a > negative opinion of them.
> It is quite irrelevant that those opinions may be honestly held or > have justification in the mind of the holder - once they are " > published " in a way that harms the other party, defamation has > occurred. > Defences are available, but in the case above none them applied.
> The defendant naively believed he was allowed to express his opinions > of the school principal any way he chose.
> WRONG !!!
> He has now learned an expensive lesson.
>> I'm not so sure about honesty.
> ** You are a very confused puppy.
Why, because I should be sure that it is or isn't as subjective as the other two?
> If he'd employed a laywer, he'd have been told to settle for sure. As it is, he's up for > costs as well, which could easily come to more than the damages already awarded against > him.
I suspect the internal justification is something like he was insulted by the education system first because HIS daughters were not found to be the brightest. As if school ranking actually predetermines life outcomes, statistically yes, individually no. Chances are he still believes he is right. That will feed his anger, and it will all be the principals fault. This is probably not the end. Look! Eagle !
> "You have cheated me and behaved cheaply. You and your generation will suffer for this > sin." > "During the hearing, he asserted his present belief that the defamatory matter was true, > doing so in the teeth of the uncontradicted evidence of its falsity. I am satisfied that > his allegations were groundless, and were the product of fantasy fuelled by enduring > ill-will towards the plaintiff, and his desire to discredit her and bring her down." > Reads much like the usual suspects in aus.politics :-)
I don't frequent aus.politics, but note that I posted to aus.tv despite observing that it was OT ;)
>>> I would have thought that competence and trustworthiness are matters >>> of opinion.
>> ** And this is the whole point of defamation law.
>> An individual's good reputation is a very valuable thing and not >> allowed to be casually destroyed by anyone who happens to hold a >> negative opinion of them.
>> It is quite irrelevant that those opinions may be honestly held or >> have justification in the mind of the holder - once they are " >> published " in a way that harms the other party, defamation has >> occurred. >> Defences are available, but in the case above none them applied.
>> The defendant naively believed he was allowed to express his opinions >> of the school principal any way he chose.
>> WRONG !!!
>> He has now learned an expensive lesson.
>>> I'm not so sure about honesty.
>> ** You are a very confused puppy.
> Why, because I should be sure that it is or isn't as subjective as the > other two?
** Publicly declaring a person in a position of trust and responsibility to be "incompetent ", " untrustworthy " or " dishonest " are all equally damaging to their reputation.
>>>> I would have thought that competence and trustworthiness are matters >>>> of opinion.
>>> ** And this is the whole point of defamation law.
>>> An individual's good reputation is a very valuable thing and not >>> allowed to be casually destroyed by anyone who happens to hold a >>> negative opinion of them.
>>> It is quite irrelevant that those opinions may be honestly held or >>> have justification in the mind of the holder - once they are " >>> published " in a way that harms the other party, defamation has >>> occurred. >>> Defences are available, but in the case above none them applied.
>>> The defendant naively believed he was allowed to express his opinions >>> of the school principal any way he chose.
>>> WRONG !!!
>>> He has now learned an expensive lesson.
>>>> I'm not so sure about honesty.
>>> ** You are a very confused puppy. >> Why, because I should be sure that it is or isn't as subjective as the >> other two?
> ** Publicly declaring a person in a position of trust and responsibility to > be "incompetent ", " untrustworthy " or " dishonest " are all equally > damaging to their reputation.
Did he say otherwise? The distinction he drew related to the level of subjectivity. I'd say he was right.
>>>> I would have thought that competence and trustworthiness are >>>> matters of opinion.
>>> ** And this is the whole point of defamation law.
>>> An individual's good reputation is a very valuable thing and not >>> allowed to be casually destroyed by anyone who happens to hold a >>> negative opinion of them.
>>> It is quite irrelevant that those opinions may be honestly held or >>> have justification in the mind of the holder - once they are " >>> published " in a way that harms the other party, defamation has >>> occurred. >>> Defences are available, but in the case above none them applied.
>>> The defendant naively believed he was allowed to express his >>> opinions of the school principal any way he chose.
>>> WRONG !!!
>>> He has now learned an expensive lesson.
>>>> I'm not so sure about honesty.
>>> ** You are a very confused puppy.
>> Why, because I should be sure that it is or isn't as subjective as >> the other two?
> ** Publicly declaring a person in a position of trust and > responsibility to be "incompetent ", " untrustworthy " or " > dishonest " are all equally damaging to their reputation.
It should have been obvious that I was referring to the everyday meanings of these words. You might think a person is incompetent or untrustworthy for any trivial reason, but for dishonesty maybe you'd need evidence of lying or another dishonest act.
> You are not even beginning to get it.
> Dickhead.
Well, it had been a while since I'd been insulted by Phil. I was feeling neglected.
>>>>> I would have thought that competence and trustworthiness are >>>>> matters of opinion.
>>>> ** And this is the whole point of defamation law.
>>>> An individual's good reputation is a very valuable thing and not >>>> allowed to be casually destroyed by anyone who happens to hold a >>>> negative opinion of them.
>>>> It is quite irrelevant that those opinions may be honestly held or >>>> have justification in the mind of the holder - once they are " >>>> published " in a way that harms the other party, defamation has >>>> occurred. >>>> Defences are available, but in the case above none them applied.
>>>> The defendant naively believed he was allowed to express his >>>> opinions of the school principal any way he chose.
>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>> He has now learned an expensive lesson.
>>>>> I'm not so sure about honesty.
>>>> ** You are a very confused puppy. >>> Why, because I should be sure that it is or isn't as subjective as >>> the other two?
>> ** Publicly declaring a person in a position of trust and >> responsibility to be "incompetent ", " untrustworthy " or " >> dishonest " are all equally damaging to their reputation.
> It should have been obvious that I was referring to the everyday meanings of > these words. You might think a person is incompetent or untrustworthy for any > trivial reason, but for dishonesty maybe you'd need evidence of lying or another > dishonest act.
>> You are not even beginning to get it.
>> Dickhead.
> Well, it had been a while since I'd been insulted by Phil. I was feeling > neglected.
> BTW, can I sue him for that?
Tempting though the idea is, I think not. The problem would be one of showing damage. Given that everyone who frequents these groups knows of Phil's tendency to hurl abuse at little or no provocation, no one reading one of his insulting missives is going to attach any truth to it.
>>> Why, because I should be sure that it is or isn't as subjective as >>> the other two?
>> ** Publicly declaring a person in a position of trust and >> responsibility to be "incompetent ", " untrustworthy " or " >> dishonest " are all equally damaging to their reputation.
> It should have been obvious that I was referring to the everyday meanings > of these words.
** No special meanings apply.
> You might think a person is incompetent or untrustworthy for any trivial > reason, but for dishonesty maybe you'd need evidence of lying or another > dishonest act.
** Is that so ??
What someone may " think " about another is not the issue.
>>>> Why, because I should be sure that it is or isn't as subjective as >>>> the other two?
>>> ** Publicly declaring a person in a position of trust and >>> responsibility to be "incompetent ", " untrustworthy " or " >>> dishonest " are all equally damaging to their reputation.
>> It should have been obvious that I was referring to the everyday >> meanings of these words.
> ** No special meanings apply.
>> You might think a person is incompetent or untrustworthy for any >> trivial reason, but for dishonesty maybe you'd need evidence of >> lying or another dishonest act.
> ** Is that so ??
> What someone may " think " about another is not the issue.
Not in a courtroom perhaps, but that's not what I was referring to. After pretty well spelling that out to you last time I don't know what else I can do.
> Tempting though the idea is, I think not. The problem would be one of > showing damage. Given that everyone who frequents these groups knows of > Phil's tendency to hurl abuse at little or no provocation, no one > reading one of his insulting missives is going to attach any truth to it.
So why do you even bother replying to the retarded toaster boi?
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!" - Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!" - Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!" - Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty" - Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..." - Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor general!" - Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!" - FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.
"I don't care what you fuckers think!" - KRudd the KRude at his finest again.
"We'll just change it all when we get in." - Garrett the carrott
>> Tempting though the idea is, I think not. The problem would be one of >> showing damage. Given that everyone who frequents these groups knows >> of Phil's tendency to hurl abuse at little or no provocation, no one >> reading one of his insulting missives is going to attach any truth to it.
> So why do you even bother replying to the retarded toaster boi?
>> I would have thought that competence and trustworthiness are matters of >> opinion.
> ** And this is the whole point of defamation law.
> An individual's good reputation is a very valuable thing and not allowed > to be casually destroyed by anyone who happens to hold a negative > opinion of them.
Sylvia Else wrote: > Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF > wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> Tempting though the idea is, I think not. The problem would be one of >>> showing damage. Given that everyone who frequents these groups knows >>> of Phil's tendency to hurl abuse at little or no provocation, no one >>> reading one of his insulting missives is going to attach any truth to >>> it.
>> So why do you even bother replying to the retarded toaster boi?
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!" - Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!" - Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!" - Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty" - Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..." - Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor general!" - Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!" - FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.
"I don't care what you fuckers think!" - KRudd the KRude at his finest again.
"We'll just change it all when we get in." - Garrett the carrott
"Horry" <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hd0a4n$hng$2@news.datemas.de... : On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:18:27 +1100, Phil Allison wrote: : : > "DavidW" : >> Sylvia Else wrote: : >> : >>> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/angry-dads-80k-defamation-bill/ : story-e6freuy9-1225794962835 : >> : >> : >> I would have thought that competence and trustworthiness are matters of : >> opinion. : > : > : > ** And this is the whole point of defamation law. : > : > An individual's good reputation is a very valuable thing and not allowed : > to be casually destroyed by anyone who happens to hold a negative : > opinion of them. : : Shut the fuck up, idiot.
|
