Re: Had minion read the Brisbane comments: no one has ever been prosecuted under the prior law.
No one was ever prosecuted (and they mean convicted) since the courts have always dismissed the charges ( a whole heap of people have been charged with it though)
In fact the new legislation that the current Liberal party is going for is for NO judicial oversight, no Procedural fairness, and all based on what the Minister wants. Our constitution specifically forbids this sort of power being laced in the hands of any politician. We had a similar thing in 1957 when the then government tried to do same thing with communists. It then after the high court wiped the law went to a referendum, the referendum failed BIG TIME!
You like most of your comments have no fucking clue what you are talking about, and this is nothing to do with the labor party (who some in it are actually all for this change in legislation).
Next time before you comment out of the blue like, on something you have no clue on SHUT THE FUCK UP! Or you make yourself look more incompetent and moronic then we already know you are
This woman is trying to use the ruling in Gutnick to be relevant in Google's case, when in fact Gutnick has no relevance here since Google is NOT a publisher in this matter.
The person she should be suing is Ripoff Reports instead which under the Gutnick ruling she probably has a better chance of success.
Though unlike the respondents in Gutnick (Dow Jones and Co), Ripoff Reports has no offices in Australia so a comity action on a success would not be available either.
Personally I refuse to give my business to any firm who calls itself the 'largest xxxxx' mainly since basic probability would suggest that they would be more inclined to have MORE idiots working there than anywhere else.
This petulance by Dentons (never heard of em so maybe it's the US 'world') proves my theory absolutely.
Images of a private intimate, or sexually explicit nature are always the property of the individual(s) they portray, in perpetuity (I think that means forever), No exceptions.
NO they are NOT! And until you accept that premise the rest of your argument fails on it's face.
Images are under the exclusive control of the copyright holder NOT the subjects of the photo, unless those subjects actually took the photo. Where it gets murky is if the photographer is also in the photo with another subject (ie: using a timer on the camera) though it then comes down to who pressed the button and owns the camera - though not that simple sometimes.
Viewing another's private parts is undeniably a kind of sexual act. If we can't agree on this we're denying some pretty simple truth about ourselves.
Again you are wrong and generalising. A doctor views a patients 'private parts", an artist painting a nude does as well. The list goes on. What instead you should be stating is the mens rae of viewing for purient purposes is Generally considered a sexual act.
What I am suggesting, no, what I am stating, is that posting revenge porn is a near equivalent of giving the keys to you EX's apt to a rapist. Ah.. I wondered when the Godwin of Revenge porn would appear here ie: the word rape(ist). Rape is not in any way comparable to what is happening here, and to conflate rape with this is deplorable.
Yes it is morally repugnant and societally wrongful for someone to intentionally post unwanted images of someone to embarass, humiliate and harrass someone else. Though thankfully we already have laws against that. USE THEM! But to equate it with rape is abhorent.
They are BOTH subjective, personal is subjective to societal norms of the time you lie in as well as your culture, and image/understanding of yourself.
What you describe as personal is in no ways the same as what someone else would. That is why privacy is so hard to define universally.
Wow.. just went to the Got_nospacerequired_News site and after reading a few things then getting a headache I can honestly state that this moron is a few sandwiches short of a fucking picnic..
ie: Chuck Johnson is BatShit fucking crazy!
Why the hell hasn't he been made a Vexatious litigant yet?
Think of it this way, is an article published when the paper arrives on your doorstep or when the person reads it when they discover it under your floorboards 50yrs from now?
I read it as ", then don't take naked pictures of yourself. and place them willingly on the unsecured internet"
With that implied addendum it is definitely not victim blaming.
Without it, well yes it is skirting on victim blaming.
And though it is an action, (as is the action of writing and voicing something) it's a form of speech since you are conveying a communication to others. Speech doesn't have to be specifically verbal or written.
Becasue posting an image that YOU took of your significant other in the all together whilst repugnant and morally wrong is quite legal since you own the photo and copyright and they agreed to you taking the photo.
If you can prove that they took the photo without your knowledge in a private setting well that's harassment (different law). If the person photographed was a minor, again different criminal already in place law. If the photos were hacked (unauthorised access) again thats a seperate criminal already in place criminal law.
There is NOTHING inherently illegal about posting your own photos that you took online. Though it could be unlawful.
Australia (my home) is currently going through this at moment since a whole lot of photos were posted to 8chan after a phone hack occured. Most idiots are victim blaming, but the other side are trying to ask for new laws that would have so much chilling effect its unreal. It's a real problem but ad hoc measures like Google is NOT the correct way of doing things
And America wonders when they try to spout that they are a democracy with due process laws that people in EVERY part of the world point at your Star Chamber/Kangaroo Court (Call it a Grand jury if you will) and laugh hilariously!
It's also why Grand Jury indictments from The USA hold no weight in English Rule law countries
On the post: Australia's New Law Would Strip Citizenship For Possessing A 'Thing' Connected With Terrorism, Or Whistleblowing
Re: Had minion read the Brisbane comments: no one has ever been prosecuted under the prior law.
In fact the new legislation that the current Liberal party is going for is for NO judicial oversight, no Procedural fairness, and all based on what the Minister wants. Our constitution specifically forbids this sort of power being laced in the hands of any politician. We had a similar thing in 1957 when the then government tried to do same thing with communists. It then after the high court wiped the law went to a referendum, the referendum failed BIG TIME!
You like most of your comments have no fucking clue what you are talking about, and this is nothing to do with the labor party (who some in it are actually all for this change in legislation).
Next time before you comment out of the blue like, on something you have no clue on SHUT THE FUCK UP! Or you make yourself look more incompetent and moronic then we already know you are
On the post: Australia's New Law Would Strip Citizenship For Possessing A 'Thing' Connected With Terrorism, Or Whistleblowing
Re:
On the post: Guy Writes New James Bond Book... Only Available Where Bond Is In The Public Domain
Re: Re:
It's seems you have been shaken and not stirred by my sarcasm :)
On the post: Guy Writes New James Bond Book... Only Available Where Bond Is In The Public Domain
On the post: EU Court Lawyer Advises Against Granting Trademark For Kit Kat Shape
So why they need a trademark is beyond me /s
On the post: Researcher Headed To Australian Supreme Court In Attempt To Hold Google Responsible For Posts At Ripoff Reports [Updated]
The person she should be suing is Ripoff Reports instead which under the Gutnick ruling she probably has a better chance of success.
Though unlike the respondents in Gutnick (Dow Jones and Co), Ripoff Reports has no offices in Australia so a comity action on a success would not be available either.
Gutnick refers to "Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56" and is found at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/56.html
On the post: Researcher Headed To Australian Supreme Court In Attempt To Hold Google Responsible For Posts At Ripoff Reports [Updated]
Re: She's a South Australian and you expect any better?
On the post: Legal Giant Dentons Demonstrates Exactly How Not To Respond To Critical Media Coverage
This petulance by Dentons (never heard of em so maybe it's the US 'world') proves my theory absolutely.
On the post: Alleged Dallas Buyers Club Pirates To Be Asked For Employment, Income And Health Details
Ex.1 "The Q&A Script" https://www.scribd.com/doc/269424789/2015-06-18-Exhibit-1-From-Hearing
Exhibit 2 "The Letter to alleged infringers" https://www.scribd.com/doc/269424819/2015-06-18-Exhibit-2-From-Hearing
more Info at Zdnet http://www.zdnet.com/article/court-releases-dallas-buyers-club-piracy-letter/
On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search... Raising Some Questions
Re: Re: I think it's more complex than that.
On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search... Raising Some Questions
Re: I think it's more complex than that.
NO they are NOT! And until you accept that premise the rest of your argument fails on it's face.
Images are under the exclusive control of the copyright holder NOT the subjects of the photo, unless those subjects actually took the photo. Where it gets murky is if the photographer is also in the photo with another subject (ie: using a timer on the camera) though it then comes down to who pressed the button and owns the camera - though not that simple sometimes.
Viewing another's private parts is undeniably a kind of sexual act. If we can't agree on this we're denying some pretty simple truth about ourselves.
Again you are wrong and generalising. A doctor views a patients 'private parts", an artist painting a nude does as well. The list goes on. What instead you should be stating is the mens rae of viewing for purient purposes is Generally considered a sexual act.
What I am suggesting, no, what I am stating, is that posting revenge porn is a near equivalent of giving the keys to you EX's apt to a rapist.
Ah.. I wondered when the Godwin of Revenge porn would appear here ie: the word rape(ist). Rape is not in any way comparable to what is happening here, and to conflate rape with this is deplorable.
Yes it is morally repugnant and societally wrongful for someone to intentionally post unwanted images of someone to embarass, humiliate and harrass someone else. Though thankfully we already have laws against that. USE THEM! But to equate it with rape is abhorent.
On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search... Raising Some Questions
Re: Re: Blowing that foot clean off
What you describe as personal is in no ways the same as what someone else would. That is why privacy is so hard to define universally.
On the post: Nutty Trollish Guy On The Internet Files Nutty Trollish Defamation Lawsuit In Random State
Re: Takes one to know one.
On the post: Nutty Trollish Guy On The Internet Files Nutty Trollish Defamation Lawsuit In Random State
ie: Chuck Johnson is BatShit fucking crazy!
Why the hell hasn't he been made a Vexatious litigant yet?
On the post: A Lesson In How Not To Do A Defamation Threat, Courtesy Of Lawyer Casey Cummings
Re: statute of limitations?
On the post: A Lesson In How Not To Do A Defamation Threat, Courtesy Of Lawyer Casey Cummings
Though I'm wondering if some asshole is signing Cumming's name to stupid letters.
On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search... Raising Some Questions
Re: The state is.
On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search... Raising Some Questions
Re: Re: Sorry but no.
With that implied addendum it is definitely not victim blaming.
Without it, well yes it is skirting on victim blaming.
And though it is an action, (as is the action of writing and voicing something) it's a form of speech since you are conveying a communication to others. Speech doesn't have to be specifically verbal or written.
On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search... Raising Some Questions
Re: Re: Blowing that foot clean off
If you can prove that they took the photo without your knowledge in a private setting well that's harassment (different law). If the person photographed was a minor, again different criminal already in place law. If the photos were hacked (unauthorised access) again thats a seperate criminal already in place criminal law.
There is NOTHING inherently illegal about posting your own photos that you took online. Though it could be unlawful.
Australia (my home) is currently going through this at moment since a whole lot of photos were posted to 8chan after a phone hack occured. Most idiots are victim blaming, but the other side are trying to ask for new laws that would have so much chilling effect its unreal. It's a real problem but ad hoc measures like Google is NOT the correct way of doing things
On the post: Confirmed: DOJ Obtained Gag Order To Keep Reason From Informing Affected Commenters Or Discussing Subpoena
It's also why Grand Jury indictments from The USA hold no weight in English Rule law countries
Next >>