Brett Stewart wins defamation case

[Harvies elbow]

Why don't the eagles use snake's legal team to take mcynt on.. Proves they know what they're doing.

Great idea.
Love to see it.
Then they can saddle up again for the club and sue greenturd.
Anyway good on ya Snake.

 

[HappilyManly]

This was the pathetic DT apology after 2 years of vitriolic, unsubstantiated charges

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t/news-story/f3719b394d09a97a3570f9ed3a1013c5

Apology to Brett Stewart
NewsComAu
May 2, 2011 9:21am

ON 10 March 2009, the news.com.au website published a series of articles about the police investigation into allegations of sexual assault made by a 17-year-old girl against Brett Stewart.
Mr Stewart was acquitted by a jury of the resulting criminal charges in September 2010. News Digital Media Pty Limited apologises to Mr Stewart for any hurt and embarrassment caused by those articles.

 

[HappilyManly]

I'm sure we'll have some defamation lawyers here who can confirm the legalities, but my understanding is if you repeat slanderous allegations publicly you can also be held liable. Actually @Dan will know this, he has to deal with this stuff often unfortunately.

https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html#defences

• innocent dissemination (e.g. applicable to re-publishers/re-distributors such as newsagents/book sellers, including potentially to ISPs/ICHs. The defence in Clause 91 of the BSA is also relevant to ISPs/ICHs.)

ST is innocent dissemination of content

 

[MissKate]

"The article is understood to have remained on the website for several hours before it was taken down, but it received further exposure because nine minutes after it first appeared on the Daily Telegraph's site, it was uploaded onto a Sea Eagles fan site, www.silvertails.com.au"

Lucky Dan wasn't sued as well. Probably timely to remind ourselves that everyone can each be held responsible for what you publish online, including republishing material from other sites and news agencies.

No Dan will be fine because his Silvertails website is www.silvertails.net, this article is referring to some website called www.silvertails.com.au.

Stupid journo couldn't even get that minor fact correct

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

ST is innocent dissemination of content

So you will indemnify Dan against any loss if that happens to be wrong?

 

[HappilyManly]

So you will indemnify Dan against any loss if that happens to be wrong?

It's the law that indemnifies Dan, not people

 

[Spartan Eagle]

https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html#defences

• innocent dissemination (e.g. applicable to re-publishers/re-distributors such as newsagents/book sellers, including potentially to ISPs/ICHs. The defence in Clause 91 of the BSA is also relevant to ISPs/ICHs.)

ST is innocent dissemination of content

Not sure that the information from website is current.. Seems that case law quoted is relevant up to 2006. Believe that the most recent decision relating to this issue was raised in Duffy v Google in 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...ebsites-australian-court-20151101-gko9l8.html

It's all very complicated.

 

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

I'm sure we'll have some defamation lawyers here who can confirm the legalities, but my understanding is if you repeat slanderous allegations publicly you can also be held liable. Actually @Dan will know this, he has to deal with this stuff often unfortunately.

No expert here, but i think general, republishing something like an article - without throwing in your own commentary - from a publication in a discussion forum, as probably was the case here, someone copying the news article and pasting it in, you are generally simply requested to remove it rather than becoming instantly a target. That said if you don't comply to the request, then you can certainly become liable and part of the overall damages. That's why it is always good to attribute a source / article link, and always be careful with your own commentary especially in this day and age with so many rumour / clickbait sites scouring for content, a dodgy operator and your simple comment can easily become the source of a full article.

 

[Dan]

"The article is understood to have remained on the website for several hours before it was taken down, but it received further exposure because nine minutes after it first appeared on the Daily Telegraph's site, it was uploaded onto a Sea Eagles fan site, www.silvertails.com.au"

Lucky Dan wasn't sued as well. Probably timely to remind ourselves that everyone can each be held responsible for what you publish online, including republishing material from other sites and news agencies.

Exactly why we ask that you don’t post full articles and post links only, I get emails and phone calls regularly about articles posted, once we were 10 mins from having an injunction filed against us in the early days because of a non league related article.

 

[Bearfax]

Well done Brett. He's copped s..t long enough from the League and the media. Would only happen because he's playing for Manly

 

[Normie]

Typical News Corp can’t even get the website right....... lol

Despite the report being taken down from the News Corp website, it was up long enough for the Sea Eagles fan site, www.silvertails.com.au, to upload the story.

 

[niccipops]

Good. No wonder this guy hates the media.

 

[NLSeaEagle]

I think Manly have bigger problems!!!

This is the 2nd payment that Newscorp have made to Stewart!

Greenturd is probably going to hang us for an undisclosed third party contract!!

 

[Loobs]

Surely the Club has grounds now to do something similar? Remember they published headlines saying "Game of Throwns" etc with the clubs logo pasted everywhere.

Geez I'd love for the club to stick it to them.

No the DT would argue they were just reporting on an investigation.

 

[Go manly]

So true, HM. I know he has his restaurant in Melbourne, probably a great idea for him to avoid NSW and Queensland where most people are league fans and almost everyone would instantly recognise him and, as you say, the mud sticks. In Melbourne most people wouldn't know much of that history and would treat him with the respect that he deserves.

What you wouldn't give to have a quiet beer in his new joint in Melbourne & learn how he has escaped and at ease in his new venture

I reckon he will begin a new chapter and become very successful

Btw
The furphy beer at 4 dollars a pop at happy hour between 4 and 7 and the Tuesday all you can eat option for a red back is good value too

Oh that's right
Today's Tuesday

Oops did I give my location away but if you hurry its open to 1 am

 

[Loobs]

Not sure that the information from website is current.. Seems that case law quoted is relevant up to 2006. Believe that the most recent decision relating to this issue was raised in Duffy v Google in 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...ebsites-australian-court-20151101-gko9l8.html

It's all very complicated.

Isn’t that related to their algorithm and the way it promotes articles?

Just reposting something here from the DT is the tech equivalent of saying to someone did you read that? The onus is on the person who first puts it out into the world.

As an aside, how often do you think caselaw is cited on 1EE or the kennel..?

 

[Dan]

So in my experience and I have had a lot of these requests, is that we are asked to remove the article and sternly warned not to reprint them. In those cases I take them down as soon as possible, usually instantly. I then usually get a lot of complaints from people on the site that I removed the article and content and freedom of speech etc.

The reality is I can't really afford to pay out any damages or even defend myself of in such a case.
So when you post it on the forums, you are responsible for what you post and can be caught up in one of these.

I don't get as many questions, calls and emails as I used to however at one stage I was getting a legal request on average once a week.

So, a good idea to just post the link and maybe one paragraph and then you are safe, if the link is taken down then your post is fine and isnt a reprint of the information.

 

[Chip and Chase]

Isn’t that related to their algorithm and the way it promotes articles?

Just reposting something here from the DT is the tech equivalent of saying to someone did you read that? The onus is on the person who first puts it out into the world.

As an aside, how often do you think caselaw is cited on 1EE or the kennel..?

You'd be surprised how many posters on The Kennel and One Eyed Trouser Snake have legal "experience"

 

[Pittwater Legend]

Brett Stewart wins court cases like he wins grand finals.

 

[HoldenV8]

The fact that Silvertails was even mentioned in the article, to me is proof positive that the media troll fan sites like ours looking for some of their scoops.