> The Court went on to note that the mental element depends on whether the defendant is a “primary publisher” or a “secondary publisher”. A “primary publisher” may be held liable for defamation regardless of whether it knows of the defamatory material, whereas a “secondary publisher” is only held liable if it knows that what it was publishing contains the passage in question or is reckless or careless as to its containing such a passage
Why stop there? Hacker News is now a "tertiary publisher" because it links to Google.com, which links to defamatory content! Hell, the judge, in the act of commenting on this case, is a 5th-level publisher! For shame!
Anyway, Australia is ranked dead last in my personal ranking of countries that "get it". The cluelessness train keeps rolling over there. We get silly internet laws and even sillier interpretations of silly internet laws every day.
Why stop there? Hacker News is now a "tertiary publisher" because it links to Google.com, which links to defamatory content! Hell, the judge, in the act of commenting on this case, is a 5th-level publisher! For shame!
Anyway, Australia is ranked dead last in my personal ranking of countries that "get it". The cluelessness train keeps rolling over there. We get silly internet laws and even sillier interpretations of silly internet laws every day.