Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Among the various common law jurisdictions, some Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the Gutnick decision. [48] On the other hand, the decision mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy. In 2006, uniform defamation laws came into effect across Australia. [49]
Australian defamation law is defined through a combination of common law and statutory law. Between 2014 and 2018, Australia earned the title of “world defamation capital”, recording 10 times as many libel claims as the UK on a per-capita basis. [1] Australia's common law is nationally uniform, and so principles and remedies for defamation ...
According to Defamation Prohibition Law [full citation needed] (1965), defamation can constitute either civil or criminal offence. As a civil offence, defamation is considered a tort case and the court may award a compensation of up to NIS 50,000 to the person targeted by the defamation, while the plaintiff does not have to prove a material damage.
Home Affairs minister Tony Burke, who introduced the amendments enabling the provisions late on Wednesday, said the changes were the “toughest laws Australia has ever had against hate crimes”.
Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v IceTV Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1172. Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v IceTV Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 71; (2008) 168 FCR 14. Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v IceTV Pty Ltd [No 2] [2008] FCAFC 154: Court membership; Judges sitting: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ: Case opinions; Appeal allowed.
Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth, [1] is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case is notable in Australian Constitutional Law as one of the first cases within Australia's implied freedom of political communication jurisprudence.
A Sydney-based Chinese academic has slammed Beijing-run media reports labelling him an Australian spy, three years after an espionage case against him was "closed" by authorities in China.Feng ...
Google and its subsidiary companies, such as YouTube, have removed or omitted information from its services in order to comply with company policies, legal demands, and government censorship laws. [1] Numerous governments have asked Google to censor content.