tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18815215.post2403239171615003670..comments2024-03-03T19:26:23.287+11:00Comments on Open and Shut: Who is a journalist? Yes it will matter...Peter Timminshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04589018910216965607noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18815215.post-46147081793515252452009-12-24T13:00:47.525+11:002009-12-24T13:00:47.525+11:00Thanks Dan, I'll certainly have a look after t...Thanks Dan, I'll certainly have a look after the break.I think the UK Courts have accepted evidence of responsible journalism as a defence or mitigating factor. Our media law types have had no success in getting something along these lines accepted here.<br /><br />Enjoy that snow and ice!. From sunny Sydney( the other one-not Nova Scotia)Peter Timminshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589018910216965607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18815215.post-18913611812637475182009-12-24T12:34:12.641+11:002009-12-24T12:34:12.641+11:00Thanks Peter.
In light of this post, you may be ...Thanks Peter. <br /><br />In light of this post, you may be interested in a pair of landmark cases that our Supreme Court of Canada issued yesterday. The SCC recognized a new defence of "responsible communications on matters of public interest" in our law of defamation. The Court held that all responsible communication on matters of public interest should be protected irrespective of the status of the communicator. On what is in the "public interest," the Court noted only "government and political matters" are protected under Australian law and opted for a broader (though more ambiguous) boundary on what types of communication are protected under this new defence.<br /><br />The cases are here:<br /><br />http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc61/2009scc61.html<br /><br />http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc62/2009scc62.html<br /><br />Enjoy, and please keep up the great work!<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com