G'day Bob,

Replying to a message of Bob Lawrence to Jeff Green on 20/01/97:

 JG>> I was reading about that case and found out that under the laws
 JG>> that applied to that case (WA I think), the truth was no
 JG>> defense. To not defame someone, it must be shown to be in the
 JG>> public interest. Truth is irrelevant!. 

 BL>   If you want to see how the opposite approach works, have a look at
 BL> the USA. They don't even need truth if it's covered by the first
 BL> amendment. The classic case is a newspaper that published lies about
 BL> two sisters' morality and got away with it. 

 BL>   I think I prefer the Australian libel laws which protect small
 BL> unimportant people when there is no public issue involved. We can
 BL> still attack public figures... assuming they don't own the newspapers,
 BL> TV stations, and judges.

Wouldn't it make sense that it must be in the public interest AND true?

"Public interest" is already opinion based (the judges) anyway.
Truth is truth if it can be proven. Just ask the NSW Police Dept if you
don't believe me about truth.

Regards...Jeff (jeff{at}matra.com.au)

--- FleetStreet 1.17+