I'm a slashdot editor, and I can't distinguish between the concepts of "secretly" and "non-consensually".

Please give generously, so further people don't have to suffer the consequences of my stupidity.

Except ... this judgement isn't related in any way to Ryan Giggs or superinjunctions. It's about revealing the source of very specific, possibly untrue, allegations of actual malfeasance in reference to the governance of Sunderland.

Freedom of speech does not include the right to slander or libel people you don't like, and it absolutely does not include the right to do so anonymously. You have the right to free speech - but you also must obey the libel laws, and you must be prepared to take the legal consequences of your free speech.

Objection your honour: assumes a fact not in evidence. My client would like it stated that the £50,000 cost for legal fees is press conjecture, unsupported by citations.

Actually, that list goes:

ESB
SW
RotJ
Star Wars Holiday Special
Caravan of Courage: The Ewok Movie
TPM
RotS ...
Care Bears the Movie
Sex and the City ...
AotC

Kids, eh. Many of them don't know the difference between "who's" and "whose".

Seriously folks, no-one is looking at the free US Media and saying "That is the model to which we should all aspire". Would I rather have a democratic government or Rupert Murdoch controlling the media - well, I'd rather have neither - but at least I can vote out a democratic government.

Fox News or The BBC - no fucking contest....

You're left with nothing but dust...

I can't speak for Australian Law, but it most certainly does in some jurisdictions.

Except Sydney Opera House was opened in 1973, so its completely reasonable that its design is subject to copyright. Stonehenge was completed sometime around 1500BC, so that copyright has probably lapsed by now.