Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:What the Judge Said... (Score 1) 213

by Jonti (#31251168) Attached to: Simon Singh To Appeal In UK Court Today

You've got that arse-backwards, I'm afraid.

Under English Law, one may say untrue things about someone and not be liable (sic) for libel (sic). This would be true if you said Ian Huntley (a convicted child killer) is into beastiality, for example. He has such a lousy reputation anyway, it's impossible to further tarnish it, however outrageous a lie about him one tells.

But truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel and slander in England, as it is (I imagine) everywhere. It's what it means; to libel (sic) is to tell a damaging untruth.

Comment: Re:Good news, but (Score 1) 252

by Jonti (#31019826) Attached to: Landmark Ruling Gives Australian ISPs Safe Harbor

I googled it, and I discover

"The Eureka rebellion is considered by some historians to be the birthplace of Australian democracy. It is the only Australian example of armed rebellion leading to reform of unfair laws. The Southern Cross flag has been used as a symbol of protest by organisations and individuals at both ends of the political spectrum."

Sounds foundational to me. Why shouldn't it count, just because the rebels mostly weren't born in Oz?

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan

Working...