🚀 go-pugleaf

: Leigh Hart (hart@dove.mtx.net.au) wrote:
: : Hulk Hogan (root@cltr.uq.oz.au) wrote:
: : : Before the holidays, I was told to check out  http://www.mpx.net/.
: 
: : To add further interest to this little scenario, I visited the
: : page (out of curiosity) and it now has glowing pretty graphics
: : describing the page as being:
: 
: :         The Asia pacific Internet Company Pty Ltd
: 
: : Hmmmm...Just what has Skeeve been up to lately?

	While I'm no lawyer I have read a little about defamation law,

	the requirements are that the following can be proven,

	a) The material was published, web pages I guess are included here
	b) In the material the person or company was identified,
	c) the material was defamatory to the person or entity.

	it is also interesting to note that as defamation is a tort of 
	strict liability there is no need to prove intent in a damages
	claim, however the amount of damages that may be awarded will
	be affected by intent.

	Identification does not actualy require naming the person or entity
	so long as the entity or person can be identified by the statement.

	My guess is that Microplex could sue if they wished to do so.

	for those who wish to look at the source of the information I have
	used get a copy of "The Law Handbook 5th Edition" published by the
	Redfern Legal Centre, its a very usefull guide to law in NSW.

								regards,

								Iain.