Jake Carlisle

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
GoDoggies said:
Had your own Bootsma moment?

images
Click to expand...

Obvious mouth breather is obvious.
 
Tommycash said:
Not quite, if bigfooty didn't delete it they could be liable for publication of it and may be even if they do. It's really a moot point though because it is so very highly unlikely that anyone would ever bring an action against joe bloggs on Bigfooty or Bigfooty itself. Footballers seem to forgiving sorts.

See generally: http://www.smartcompany.com.au/lega...-online-investment-forum-for-defamation.html; http://www.smh.com.au/business/its-a-dog-eat-blog-world-out-there-20120907-25jv1.html; http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ut-of-287788-awarded-to-brisbane-businessman; http://www.lavanlegal.com.au/index.php/publications/publicationdetail/internet_defamation.
Click to expand...

Not a edited publication and not based in Aus comes under the US laws.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Testekill said:
Daniel recorded the equal second highest ever
Click to expand...
Beep test/shuttle run (level)
Caleb Daniel 16.1

Clean hands test (score out of 30)
Caleb Daniel 25
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ant_ said:
Not a edited publication and not based in Aus comes under the US laws.
Click to expand...
Look you probably have had lawyers look over this, and I am just bored with my thesis so I am doing anything but that.

However, in terms of where you are based I don't think that matters so much as where it is said to legally said to come into comprehensible form. Thus in Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 the high court said :

'In defamation, the same considerations that require rejection of locating the tort by reference only to the publisher's conduct, lead to the conclusion that, ordinarily, defamation is to be located at the place where the damage to reputation occurs. Ordinarily that will be where the material which is alleged to be defamatory is available in comprehensible form assuming, of course, that the person defamed has in that place a reputation which is thereby damaged. It is only when the material is in comprehensible form that the damage to reputation is done and it is damage to reputation which is the principal focus of defamation, not any quality of the defendant's conduct. In the case of material on the World Wide Web, it is not available in comprehensible form until downloaded on to the computer of a person who has used a web browser to pull the material from the web server. It is where that person downloads the material that the damage to reputation may be done. Ordinarily then, that will be the place where the tort of defamation is committed'.


Further, I would be surprised if having no editor is a defense, and this suggests otherwise though I don't know if there is case law on it:
http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/legal-issues-for-bloggers/#headingh26
 
fpcookie said:
How dare you question the genius of Larry David.... no direction?!?! no purpose?!?!?! GOSH DARN!!!!
Click to expand...
nobody says goodnight anymore
 
Tommycash said:
Look you probably have had lawyers look over this, and I am just bored with my thesis so I am doing anything but that.

However, in terms of where you are based I don't think that matters so much as where it is said to legally said to come into comprehensible form. Thus in Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 the high court said :

'In defamation, the same considerations that require rejection of locating the tort by reference only to the publisher's conduct, lead to the conclusion that, ordinarily, defamation is to be located at the place where the damage to reputation occurs. Ordinarily that will be where the material which is alleged to be defamatory is available in comprehensible form assuming, of course, that the person defamed has in that place a reputation which is thereby damaged. It is only when the material is in comprehensible form that the damage to reputation is done and it is damage to reputation which is the principal focus of defamation, not any quality of the defendant's conduct. In the case of material on the World Wide Web, it is not available in comprehensible form until downloaded on to the computer of a person who has used a web browser to pull the material from the web server. It is where that person downloads the material that the damage to reputation may be done. Ordinarily then, that will be the place where the tort of defamation is committed'.


Further, I would be surprised if having no editor is a defense, and this suggests otherwise though I don't know if there is case law on it:
http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/legal-issues-for-bloggers/#headingh26
Click to expand...

Correct.

Side note: even though Bigfooty has a "hidden" registrant you could obtain that information from the host if necessary, then the individual poster's identifying information.
 
I'm glad this thread has turned to Beep & agility tests, and legal disputes. We'll get more out of this than the actual subject.
 
Hoges64 said:
I'm glad this thread has turned to Beep & agility tests, and legal disputes. We'll get more out of this than the actual subject.
Click to expand...

Did you know there is a rumour about JC? Apparently he b........................ And then he ......................! Why would any club touch a bloke who ..............? #backontopic
 
House_of_Dahl said:
So it just clicked that if there is an issue between Carlisle and a particular player it might be Crameri. Someone want to pm me so I stop speculating :$
Click to expand...
Of course! I do remember at some point hearing of a particular disagreement between the two. I have no idea what it could have been but that was a while ago now so I would be surprised if the water hadn't flowed under the bridge.
 
Tommycash said:
Of course! I do remember at some point hearing of a particular disagreement between the two. I have no idea what it could have been but that was a while ago now so I would be surprised if the water hadn't flowed under the bridge.
Click to expand...

Might be another rumour. Not the one I've heard. Try again :p
 
Pretty sure it relates to one of Bontempellis sisters. I used to know one through basketball at a club in the eastern suburbs, and she's a bloody stunner. That's what my guess is in this situation, reading between the lines.
 
St 07 said:
Pretty sure it relates to one of Bontempellis sisters. I used to know one through basketball at a club in the eastern suburbs, and she's a bloody stunner. That's what my guess is in this situation, reading between the lines.
Click to expand...
I bet it has something to do with Hunters mum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top