Libel

> In US law, at least, it is only libelous if it isn't true.

> In Canada and Britain (and

malice doesn't come into it (except to agravate damage, and in the case of
criminal libel)

The only defences against Libel in Oz are:
a) You didn't write/publish it.
b) It wasn't damaging c) That it is both true and in the public interest that
such a thing be publicised.

In a recent trial, a professional food columnist who wrote that he didn't like
the food at a particular restaurant was forced to pay damages, as was his
paper. Personally, I think this was outrageous, and not even in accordance
with our rather peculiar libel laws. IMHO "Public Interest" would be served by
an acknowledged food critic whose tastes matched my own telling me which
Restaurants served food that, while good, would not be to my taste.

To write (truly) that a Child Molester lives at No X, Y St is probably
libellous here. To say that Mr Z who works at a Kindergarten is a Child
Molester is, if true, probably not.

To say that any particular Politician here is a lying b*stard who couldn't
find

> On Fri, 17 Mar 100 05:59:13 GMT, aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote:

> malice doesn't come into it (except to agravate damage, and in the case

As my wife will clearly attest, you can still sue for libel even if it's not
damaging. In fact, you can WIN a libel case even if it's not damaging, but the
damage will determine how much you win. If it's considered trivial, the judge
(or Justice) will throw it out. However, sometimes a case of libel with no
damage will still go through as it may set an important precedent.