Australia: “A Supreme Court judge has called for the internet to be purged of any material likely to prejudice a trial, to prevent jurors conducting their own investigations into cases they are sitting on. Justice Virginia Bell, of the [New South Wales] Supreme Court, told a conference in Darwin of Supreme and Federal court judges from across the country yesterday that the ready availability of archived press reports on the internet could jeopardise the trial of an accused person.” She recommended that prosecutors “carry out searches on the internet and, in the event that prejudicial material is identified … request any Australian-based website to remove it until the trial is completed”. The secretary of a journalists’ organization called her proposal “silly and unworkable”. (Kevin Meade and Cath Hart, “Judge demands trial web blackout”, The Australian, Jan. 26).
Posts Tagged ‘Australia’
A simple ‘Thank you’ would do
A French researcher, Guillaume Tena, found several holes in the Viguard anti-virus program that a malicious hacker could have exploited to nullify the software’s protections. What did he do? He published his findings.
The company responsible for the holy software, Tegam, sued for copyright violation. The company is asking for a 6000 euro fine and a four month jail term. A related civil case asks for 900,000 euros in damages.
The researcher’s website says he “showed how the program worked, demonstrated a few security flaws and carried out some tests with real viruses. Unlike the advertising claimed, this software didn’t detect and stop ?100 percent of viruses?.”
From the ZDNet Australia story:
According to French security Web site K-OTik, Tena had technically broken copyright laws because his exploits were “not for personal use, but were communicated to a third party”.
However, K-OTik, which regularly publishes exploit codes, claims that the ruling could create a precedent so vulnerabilities in software, however critical, could not be declared publicly without prior agreement from the software publisher.
K-OTik?s editors say the ruling is “unimaginable and unacceptable in any other field of scientific research”.
” Security researcher to be jailed for finding bugs in software?”, ZDNet Australia, Jan. 11.
Divined intent?
The Australian state of Victoria, home to its second-largest city Melbourne, has a “religious vilification” law, which has now been tested and resulted in a conviction. The new criminals — pastors from the Catch the Fire Ministries. The crime, derogatory statements about Muslims and Islam (and very much so judging from this story).
Here is an excerpt from the judge’s ruling against pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot:
Australian med-mal crisis
It’s now abated, following states’ enactment of laws limiting recovery, and “the country’s biggest medical indemnity company has emerged from near collapse to reveal it will be able to cut premiums by an average 20 per cent”. (Mark Metherell, “Indemnity crisis heads for recovery” Sydney Morning Herald, Nov. 5). The government also threw some subsidies at the problem. For more on medical liability and legislated reform Down Under, see Jul. 16, 2003 and May 30, 2004.
Religious vilification laws
In 2001, despite alarms from free-speech advocates, the Australian state of Victoria enacted a “‘Racial and Religious Toleration Act” which provides in part:
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
Now various religious enthusiasts are in court accusing each other of false teachings, and inevitably so, since some faiths 1) hold proselytizing to be an obligation of believers and 2) hold it to be an essential part of this task to argue to potential converts that there is something seriously wrong with or deficient about other faiths. “Amir Butler, executive director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, wrote: ‘All these anti-vilification laws have achieved is to provide a legalistic weapon by which religious groups can silence their ideological opponents, rather than engaging in debate and discussion. …Who, after all, would give credence to a religion that appears so fragile it can only exist if protected by a bodyguard of lawyers?'” (Neil Addison, “Divided before the law”, Nov. 17). U.K. home secretary David Blunkett has proposed similar legislation; see Jul. 16. (Reworded Jan. 17 to reflect a reader’s objection; see letter to the editor of that date).
Update: Dow Jones settles online defamation suit
Dow Jones & Co. “has settled a defamation lawsuit launched against it by an Australian mining magnate”, agreeing to pay $137,500 plus $306,000 in legal fees to Joe Gutnick and issuing a statement in court that it never intended to suggest that he was a client of a Melbourne man jailed for financial misdeeds. The case drew wide attention (see Jan. 18-20, 2002) primarily because it occasioned a “landmark ruling in December 2002 [in which] the High Court of Australia unanimously ruled that the case could be heard in Gutnick’s home state of Victoria because people there could have read the article online. … The settlement is not likely to affect the precedent already set, said University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist, who noted courts in the United Kingdom and Canada have already cited the Australian decision in asserting jurisdiction over other Internet defamation cases.” (“Dow Jones Settles Precedent-Setting Internet Defamation Suit”, AP/Editor & Publisher, Nov. 16).
“Australians told: don’t hit sixes to win the match”
Not quite cricket: “Australian batsmen have been banned from hitting balls for six by local councils because of fears that their boundary-clearing shots might injure passers-by and prompt compensation claims.” (Anna Gizowska, Daily Telegraph (UK), Oct. 31).
War of the polling-place lawyers
“Legal battles already have broken out in many states, including battleground states Iowa, Ohio and Florida, as Republicans and Democrats turned to the courts to determine voter eligibility, electronic voting and handling of absentee and provisional ballots. … President George W Bush’s Republican party vowed today it would match or even outnumber the 10,000 lawyers monitoring battleground states for Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry on election day tomorrow.” (P. Parameswaran, “Army of lawyers monitors US poll”, The Australian, Nov. 2). More: Larry Ribstein comments on the prospect of a litigated election (via Bainbridge). And Rick Hasen’s election law blog has much more.
Tasteful lawyer-ad Hall of Fame
In 2001 Brookman, a law firm in London, ran ads in the men’s bathrooms of pubs soliciting divorce business with a picture of a packed suitcase and the slogan “Ditch the bitch”. The Advertising Standards Agency later ruled against a complaint that the ad was offensive and encouraged divorce. Defenders of the law firm pointed out that it was evenhanded and also solicited women’s business with ads saying bad things about men. (“Dump the chump…”, Lawyers Weekly Australia, Aug. 19, 2004; account of controversy at ad agency site; Scott Norvell, “Tongue Tied”, FoxNews.com, May 21, 2001).
Asbestos: new at Point of Law
Over at Point of Law, which has an entire category devoted to asbestos litigation, there are several new posts on the subject. Ted Frank reports on a potentially major turnaround in Madison County, Ill. handling of asbestos suits, occasioned by the arrival of a new judge. Guest blogger Michael DeBow links to a substantial Houston Chronicle article on the crisis. As for me, I’ve got posts on how an Australian court has approved a claim for psychological injury from asbestos, on how Dallas tort czar Fred Baron is allegedly retired from the asbestos business (well, sort of), and on the “rocket docket” operation of court schedules in, again, Madison County.