<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Crikey &#187; defamation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.crikey.com.au/topic/defamation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.crikey.com.au</link>
	<description>now with extra source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:25:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The not always rewarding history of defamation and political leaders</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/08/31/the-not-always-rewarding-history-of-defamation-and-political-leaders/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/08/31/the-not-always-rewarding-history-of-defamation-and-political-leaders/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:50:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Farmer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Bolt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Hawke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[john gorton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=244259</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My own experience in this and other defamation matters perhaps gives me a different perspective to many people on the balance there should be between critical commentary and reporting on political matters.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/08/31/the-not-always-rewarding-history-of-defamation-and-political-leaders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Most journalists&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/03/crikey-says-most-journalists/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/03/crikey-says-most-journalists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2010 02:41:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crikey Says]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Mitchell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Julie Posetti]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Australian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitdef]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=190443</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, Professor of Journalism at Bond University and the author of The Journalist's Guide to Media Law Mark Pearson states the obvious in <i>Crikey</i>. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/03/crikey-says-most-journalists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Posetti receives letter of demand from Chris Mitchell, and a special invitation</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/posetti-receives-letter-of-demand-from-chris-mitchell-and-a-special-invitation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/posetti-receives-letter-of-demand-from-chris-mitchell-and-a-special-invitation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2010 02:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Dodd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Mitchell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Julie Posetti]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Australian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitdef]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=190304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The editor in Chief of <em>The Australian</em> newspaper, Chris Mitchell, has sent a letter of demand to journalism academic, Julie Posetti, confirming he will pursue her for defamation over a series of tweets .]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/posetti-receives-letter-of-demand-from-chris-mitchell-and-a-special-invitation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Oz v Twitter: tape recording soon to surface</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/29/the-oz-v-twitter-tape-recording-soon-to-surface/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/29/the-oz-v-twitter-tape-recording-soon-to-surface/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 02:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Dodd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Mitchell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Julie Posetti]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Australian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=189331</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The accuracy of a series of tweets at the centre of a landmark defamation case is about to be proved or disproved, thanks to the release of a tape recording of the conference where the alleged defamation occurred.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/29/the-oz-v-twitter-tape-recording-soon-to-surface/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Keane: a partisan paper now wants to silence dissenters</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/29/keane-a-partisan-paper-now-wants-to-silence-dissenters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/29/keane-a-partisan-paper-now-wants-to-silence-dissenters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 02:21:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bernard Keane</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Mitchell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Julie Posetti]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Australian]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=189193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>The Australian</em>'s lack of interest in intellectual substance and quality debate has now become an effort to silence them elsewhere. The editor-in-chief's decision to sue for comments on Twitter is a new low.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/29/keane-a-partisan-paper-now-wants-to-silence-dissenters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mitchell on defamation: &#8216;neither the paper nor I would ever sue&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/29/mitchell-on-defamation-neither-the-paper-nor-i-would-ever-sue/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/29/mitchell-on-defamation-neither-the-paper-nor-i-would-ever-sue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 02:20:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Clive Hamilton</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Mitchell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Julie Posetti]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Australian]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=189314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Threats by editor-in-chief of the Australian Chris Mitchell to sue journalism academic Julie Posetti are all bluff.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/29/mitchell-on-defamation-neither-the-paper-nor-i-would-ever-sue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A legal look at the Lara Bingle case</title>
		<link>http://fortnightlyreview.info/2010/03/12/%E2%80%9Cwhere-the-bloody-hell-are-you%E2%80%9D-lara-bingle-in-search-of-a-cause-of-action/</link>
		<comments>http://fortnightlyreview.info/2010/03/12/%E2%80%9Cwhere-the-bloody-hell-are-you%E2%80%9D-lara-bingle-in-search-of-a-cause-of-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:33:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[People & Ideas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brendan Fevola]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lara bingle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=123260</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lara Bingle (and Max Markson, naturally) is taking Brendan Fevola to court for breach of privacy, defamation and misuse of her image. But does she really have a case? Legal experts <b>Jason Bosland</b> and <b>Vicki Huang</b> take the stand.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://fortnightlyreview.info/2010/03/12/%E2%80%9Cwhere-the-bloody-hell-are-you%E2%80%9D-lara-bingle-in-search-of-a-cause-of-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2UE ankle deep in legal stoush</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/12/2ue-ankle-deep-in-legal-stoush/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/12/2ue-ankle-deep-in-legal-stoush/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:26:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[TV & Radio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2ue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ray Chesterton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=116205</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some forensic rigour has been applied to the word 'ankles' in Ray Chesterton's defamation action against 2UE in the NSW Supreme Court this week, writes <b>Richard Ackland</b>. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/12/2ue-ankle-deep-in-legal-stoush/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Could a blog comment get you sued?</title>
		<link>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/08/19/anonymity-blog-commenting-and-defamation/</link>
		<comments>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/08/19/anonymity-blog-commenting-and-defamation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[models]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=80886</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A blogger posts inflammatory comments online about a Vogue model. A court then <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6055114/Google-reveals-bloggers-identity-after-Vogue-models-skank-insult.html">insists</a> the blogger be identified, so the model can sue for defamation. What if that happened in Australia? Would it change what people wrote online?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/08/19/anonymity-blog-commenting-and-defamation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The tweet that launched a $50k lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bar-tender/2009/07/exhibit-a-will-one-chicago-womans-tweet-cost-her-50000.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bar-tender/2009/07/exhibit-a-will-one-chicago-womans-tweet-cost-her-50000.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:56:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupid law suits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=76532</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How to get sued in 140 characters or fewer: a woman complained to her 20 followers on Twitter about her real estate agents. Now they're hitting her up for $50,000 for defamation. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bar-tender/2009/07/exhibit-a-will-one-chicago-womans-tweet-cost-her-50000.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Journalists beware: rumours in cyberspace may ruin credibility</title>
		<link>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23676132-details/Health+warning%3A+rumours+in+cyberspace+may+seriously+damage+your+credibility/article.do</link>
		<comments>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23676132-details/Health+warning%3A+rumours+in+cyberspace+may+seriously+damage+your+credibility/article.do#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blogosphere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rumour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=51575</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As Mark Twain said, writing long before the arrival of the internet, a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has its trousers on.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23676132-details/Health+warning%3A+rumours+in+cyberspace+may+seriously+damage+your+credibility/article.do/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Faris: why I don&#8217;t want a Crikey blog</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/03/faris-why-i-dont-want-a-crikey-blog/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/03/faris-why-i-dont-want-a-crikey-blog/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media-Arts-and-Sports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[racial vilification]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am as thick-skinned as the next commentator, probably more so, but there is no point in having dialogue with people who have a visceral hatred for you personally, writes <b>Peter Faris</b>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/03/faris-why-i-dont-want-a-crikey-blog/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A victory for journalism, but with a pinch of salt</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/17/a-victory-for-journalism-but-with-a-pinch-of-salt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/17/a-victory-for-journalism-but-with-a-pinch-of-salt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media-Arts-and-Sports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Macquarie Bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Australian]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Macquarie Bank’s protracted defamation case against the The Australian over a 2005 article about the bank’s involvement with the Beaconsfield Mine has been dismissed with costs, writes <b>Chris Paver</b>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/17/a-victory-for-journalism-but-with-a-pinch-of-salt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Whirlpool of &#8220;injurious falsehood&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/09/13/a-whirlpool-of-injurious-falsehood/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/09/13/a-whirlpool-of-injurious-falsehood/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media-Arts-and-Sports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[falsehood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stephen baldwin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whirlpool]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is a legal case unfolding in Queensland, against Simon Wright, the host of a popular IT blogsite called Whirlpool, that every blogger should keep a watching brief over as it could set an unpleasant precedent for freedom of speech.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/09/13/a-whirlpool-of-injurious-falsehood/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New uniform defamation code calms litigants</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/07/13/new-uniform-defamation-code-calms-litigants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/07/13/new-uniform-defamation-code-calms-litigants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Crikey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media-Arts-and-Sports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gangland killings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minter Ellison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious cults]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sydney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amazing but true. <i>The Age</i> newspaper has received just one writ for defamation in the last 18 months. How could this be? In the same period the paper has seen a resurgence in investigative reporting and some gutsy sleuthing on gangland killings and religious cults.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/07/13/new-uniform-defamation-code-calms-litigants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Object Caching 1118/1291 objects using apc

Served from: www.crikey.com.au @ 2012-02-12 03:27:52 -->
