Molly

Thought you’d be interested to know that the Sunday Age is reporting that a Wikipedian who defamed a certain sports journalist “can expect some interesting mail from the legal fraternity”. This likely stemmed from some (implausible) objectionable additions to Mr Howard’s Wikipedia entry involving sex-changes, leprosy and penile attachment surgery.

Goes to show that these guys are serious about protecting their reputation against online smear campaigns and the like.

Molly

Goes to show that these guys are serious about protecting their reputation against online smear campaigns and the like.

I’m not sure what the law is around “finding” confidential documents, or if there’s any way a doctor or patient could have legally sold them to her. So, if they can’t be found or sold then that only leaves one possibility, right?

Maybe Seven did a calculation and thought that getting the AFL off their back over the Akermanis/Braun affair was worth the risk.

The other thing to me that proves they thought it was fishy is that they didn’t agree to protect her as a source like you would expect with other sources. They handed her name over quicker then .

Just my 2 cents.
Molly

I think receiving stolen goods is a mens rea (”guilty mind”) offence, which means that the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that in the mind of the accused at the time, he/she knew they were stolen. It’s not enough to show that they actually were stolen.

I expect Channel 7 (and its journos) would claim they believed “Catherine” when she said “Oh, I found these in the gutter”. Medical records in the gutter? To my mind, that’s less plausible than if she’d said it fell off the back of a truck.

However, I’m not sure about what “know” means here: reasonable suspicion, balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt? How much do you really “know” about the stuff you buy on eBay or the Trading Post?

There are no doubt other defences, such as if Channel 7 intended to hand them over to police.

I'm not sure what the law is around “finding” confidential documents, or if there's any way a doctor or patient could have legally sold them to her. So, if they can't be found or sold then that only leaves one possibility, right?

Maybe Seven did a calculation and thought that getting the AFL off their back over the Akermanis/Braun affair was worth the risk.

Just my 2 cents.
Molly

I expect Channel 7 (and its journos) would claim they believed “Catherine” when she said “Oh, I found these in the gutter”. Medical records in the gutter? To my mind, that's less plausible than if she'd said it fell off the back of a truck.

However, I'm not sure about what “know” means here: reasonable suspicion, balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt? How much do you really “know” about the stuff you buy on eBay or the Trading Post?

There are no doubt other defences, such as if Channel 7 intended to hand them over to police.

I have left the email address as I don’t see that as a problem (and would be happy to argue that to a judge if necessary). Personally I think Dylan has commented on the good feedback he has gotten and would say that I hope if your unhappy with the story and the Gutter media you comment to 7/Dylan (he has asked for it).

Greg, you seem to have an eye for legal matters, should 7 fear anything from this women (and another man) being charged? Could they be charged with dealing with stolen goods?

Molly

I have left the email address as I don't see that as a problem (and would be happy to argue that to a judge if necessary). Personally I think Dylan has commented on the good feedback he has gotten and would say that I hope if your unhappy with the story and the Gutter media you comment to 7/Dylan (he has asked for it).

Greg, you seem to have an eye for legal matters, should 7 fear anything from this women (and another man) being charged? Could they be charged with dealing with stolen goods?

Molly

Just a friendly reminder to you about the so-called “cyberstalking” laws here in Victoria.

Did you know that the criminal provisions for providing a person’s personal information online is up to ten years in jail?

I imagine that would cover personal mobile numbers, email addresses and other contact details. I’m not sure, but if the intent is to menace, harass or intimidate (or encourage others to do so) then it could look very bad for the suspect.

So, it seems the AFL is not alone in getting the courts to its dirty work of silencing members of the public.

(The difference here, of course, is about doing it in the name of citizens’ personal security rather than a big corporate’s brand value protection.)

Something to think about, anyway.

-Greg.

Did you know that the criminal provisions for providing a person's personal information online is up to ten years in jail?

I imagine that would cover personal mobile numbers, email addresses and other contact details. I'm not sure, but if the intent is to menace, harass or intimidate (or encourage others to do so) then it could look very bad for the suspect.

So, it seems the AFL is not alone in getting the courts to its dirty work of silencing members of the public.

(The difference here, of course, is about doing it in the name of citizens' personal security rather than a big corporate's brand value protection.)

Something to think about, anyway.

-Greg.