A newspaper publisher was not liable for user comments posted after an online article and will not have to pay out libel damages, the High Court has ruled. The Court upheld the publisher's right under the E-Commerce Regulations not to be responsible for user comments until informed of them. Newsquest also defeated a libel claim …
'Crooked solicitors spent client money on a Rolex, loose women and drink'.
The rest of the money, they just wasted.
But it was Justice Eady...
A judge well known to the readers of Private Eye, a satricial magazine m'lud.
Here's a bit from Wikipedia:
"Eady was repeatedly rebuked by the Court of Appeal for his conduct during the libel case Desmond v. Bower. Eady disallowed several pieces of evidence against Desmond which the Appeal Court ruled were clearly relevant to the case. After hearing the evidence, the jury found in favour of Mr Bower."
Aliens. It must be aliens.
They have clearly kidnapped Eady and have subjected him to some kind of mind-reversal probe(*). So far, the results are entirely positive.
(*) - aka the "Gephardtization" process :)
Do you have different rules over there? I know that in the US, truth is a positive defense (pardon, defence) against libel. Are papers over there not allowed to publish stuff like that even if it's true?
that i was found to have defamed "mickey mouse" even though "mickey mouse" could only be identified through obtaining a Court order and forcing the ISP to say who it was and thus who was being spoken of. One thing is for certain NO.,I repeat NO, such thing as Justice comes out of any Court, of that be assured by one knows (I have "100 T shirts" believe me).
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Microsoft: Don't listen to 4chan ... especially the bit about bricking Xbox Ones
- Exploits no more! Firefox 26 blocks all Java plugins by default
- Shivering boffins nail Earth's coldest spot