Australian website names club at the centre of drugs scandal

[Frankenfurter]

just reading the Australian webpage and found the following article, not sure if they have made an error or whether this is all good. Thoughts?

AAP | August 29, 2007

THE Seven Network could be charged by police for broadcasting the private medical records of two AFL Hawthorn players, Victoria Police Commissioner Christine Nixon said today.
Ms Nixon slammed Seven for airing the medical records of the two players, which it bought from a man and a woman who claimed to have found them in a gutter, branding it "appalling" and a "disgrace".

Police, after searching the Docklands headquarters of Seven, have since charged the pair aged in their 30s with "theft by finding".

She told Southern Cross Broadcasting today that Seven may face charges.

"There is a possibility (of charges)," she said.

"As we go through this investigation, we obviously executed a search warrant on Channel Seven to gain the material, and so we will consider their role in it."

Ms Nixon said it was a great concern the medical reports were aired.

"I think it is appalling," she said.

"First of all I don't think they should have been bought and second, they should not have been aired.

"It is an invasion of privacy - one of the worst cases."

"It's a disgrace."

She also said information police had received three months ago about a player from the same club trafficking drugs was neither credible nor reliable.

"It was looked at and we determined that the information was not credible or reliable and so we did not pursue that investigation any further," she said.

Seven news chief Steve Carey has no regrets about running the story that has rocked the AFL but admits it could have been handled better.

"You'd think long and hard about how to present the documents and how you would go about the acquisition of them," he told ABC Radio.

"But do I regret, or have any problems with raising the topic in the way we did and the manner in which it was presented? No, I don't."

AFL players have started a boycott of Seven at media conference refusing to answer questions from the network's reporters.

The club and players cannot be named in Victoria for legal reasons following a Victorian Supreme Court injunction.

 

[fpm84]

The club and players cannot be named in Victoria for legal reasons following a Victorian Supreme Court injunction.

The injuction is Victorian-only, and the Australian is based in NSW. Is that right?

 

[ringleader]

The last line only says it applies to Victoria

 

[Frankenfurter]

The last line only says it applies to Victoria

why not name the players too then? Obviously most of the AFL world wants to know who they are (if they don't already)

 

[G.F.C]

The last line only says it applies to Victoria

So, if i'm sitting here at my computer in WA, i can name the players and not be subject to any ramifications?

 

[Waverley73]

So, if i'm sitting here at my computer in WA, i can name the players and not be subject to any ramifications?

Thats right. BTW - do you know who they are or just talking hypothetical?

 

[mickmartino]

Also noted they got the story off the AAP wire service, so wonder if the story is on any other news websites?

The club / names can't be distributed in Victoria, I don't think it matters where published, would expect this thread to be pulled soon enough.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

So, if i'm sitting here at my computer in WA, i can name the players and not be subject to any ramifications?

Was just thinking the same thing...

 

[Sloth]

I wonder how this will affect their finals preparations?

 

[Papa G]

Thats right. BTW - do you know who they are or just talking hypothetical?

I know who they are.

 

[Ari]

Why on earth would it only apply to Victoria? I mean, I can buy newspapers of other states in Victoria and can read online.

What a joke!!

 

[G.F.C]

Thats right. BTW - do you know who they are or just talking hypothetical?

I read the names of 7 players on this website immediatly after the story broke. These same names got removed by site admin shortly after.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

So, if i'm sitting here at my computer in WA, i can name the players and not be subject to any ramifications?

Thats right.

Incorrect - Trust me, I am studying Communications at uni at the moment, including a current course on Media Law, and if a source is published in a particular area, they are subject to the same injunctions as any media outlets based in that area.

This means that the Australian would get in trouble either way, given that it has national circulation, and even a paper like the West Australian could get in trouble if it published the information on the internet, which is accessible from Victoria.

Even the New York Times could print the names in their paper without getting in too much trouble, but if they were to then put it on their website, which is readable from anywhere, they would be subject to legal pursuit.

 

[Frankenfurter]

i just find it interesting that they are happy to name the club but not the players.

By the way i don't think either should be named with regards to the injunction.

 

[Bloben]

So, if i'm sitting here at my computer in WA, i can name the players and not be subject to any ramifications?

Interesting point.

There was a landmark legal case involving Joseph Gutnick where he had been defamed by a New York online journal. In New York the publishers of that information were protected by their freedom of speech where in Australia there is no such thing in our constitution. Joseph Gutnick managed to sue the online journal for defamation in Australia arguing that as it is online then you cannot be protected by laws in only one geographic area.

Not sure if this is the same with injunctions but the Australian must know that people would be reading this in Victoria. The above case shows that it is not where the information is uploaded but downloaded.

 

[Pessimistic]

I wonder how this will affect their finals preparations?

refer game v bulldogs - 21 goals to 3 in three quarters.


Yahoo 7, presumably connected with ch seven didn't bother to clean up a post in its forums which mentioned seven names.

Amazing that volunteers on sites such as bigfooty can do it but a professional site cannot.

I reported it to the appropriate authorities

 

[rangermcdee]

So, if i'm sitting here at my computer in WA, i can name the players and not be subject to any ramifications?

I think it would depend on where the Big Footy "company" is based. If they are based in SA for example you are efectively publishing in SA, but if it is in VIC you would be publishing in Victoria, which would go against the injunction. I am trying to remember my legal subjects from a few years ago, so I am not 100%.

The internet and mass media has made state based laws like injunctions a little silly and pointless, but it is still the law.

 

[Papa G]

I think it would depend on where the Big Footy "company" is based. If they are based in SA for example you are efectively publishing in SA, but if it is in VIC you would be publishing in Victoria, which would go against the injunction. I am trying to remember my legal subjects from a few years ago, so I am not 100%.

The internet and mass media has made state based laws like injunctions a little silly and pointless, but it is still the law.

Isn't Bigfooty owned by an American company with the Australian operations based in Brisbane?

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

I think it would depend on where the Big Footy "company" is based. If they are based in SA for example you are efectively publishing in SA, but if it is in VIC you would be publishing in Victoria, which would go against the injunction. I am trying to remember my legal subjects from a few years ago, so I am not 100%.

The internet and mass media has made state based laws like injunctions a little silly and pointless, but it is still the law.

Refer to my above post - Publishing something on the internet makes it subject to the contempt, defamation and privacy laws of everywhere that it can be accessed.

 

[Ron]

At least one website out there still has the names on their site.
Its a wonder the AFL haven't done anything about it, or if the owner is just playing hardball (which would be pretty stupid).

 

[Bloben]

I think it would depend on where the Big Footy "company" is based. If they are based in SA for example you are efectively publishing in SA, but if it is in VIC you would be publishing in Victoria, which would go against the injunction. I am trying to remember my legal subjects from a few years ago, so I am not 100%.

The internet and mass media has made state based laws like injunctions a little silly and pointless, but it is still the law.

This would be correct for print media. I am quite sure that for online media it is irrelevant where the company is based.

 

[Geddy Lee]

Incorrect - Trust me, I am studying Communications at uni at the moment, including a current course on Media Law, and if a source is published in a particular area, they are subject to the same injunctions as any media outlets based in that area.

This means that the Australian would get in trouble either way, given that it has national circulation, and even a paper like the West Australian could get in trouble if it published the information on the internet, which is accessible from Victoria.

Even the New York Times could print the names in their paper without getting in too much trouble, but if they were to then put it on their website, which is readable from anywhere, they would be subject to legal pursuit.

Gutnick case study lol

 

[Waverley73]

At least one website out there still has the names on their site.
Its a wonder the AFL haven't done anything about it, or if the owner is just playing hardball (which would be pretty stupid).

What might that site rhyme with?

 

[Mr Eagle]

Incorrect - Trust me, I am studying Communications at uni at the moment, including a current course on Media Law, and if a source is published in a particular area, they are subject to the same injunctions as any media outlets based in that area.

This means that the Australian would get in trouble either way, given that it has national circulation, and even a paper like the West Australian could get in trouble if it published the information on the internet, which is accessible from Victoria.

Even the New York Times could print the names in their paper without getting in too much trouble, but if they were to then put it on their website, which is readable from anywhere, they would be subject to legal pursuit.

Correct. Internet publishing has made the traditional boundaries of things like injunctions far less meaningful than they once were.

 

[bucksfan1987]

I think it would depend on where the Big Footy "company" is based. If they are based in SA for example you are efectively publishing in SA, but if it is in VIC you would be publishing in Victoria, which would go against the injunction. I am trying to remember my legal subjects from a few years ago, so I am not 100%.

The internet and mass media has made state based laws like injunctions a little silly and pointless, but it is still the law.

I think it has already been covered but no this is not correct. Information on an internet site is 'published' wherever it is accessed. Therefore, it is impossible to make information available to everyone BUT Victorians. So, it does not matter where the company is based.

However, I'm interested to know why The Advertiser and other non-Vic papers have not named the players. As long as they only ran it in the SA edition of the paper it sounds as though they would be fine. I suppose they would get the silent treatment from the players too though.