"Phil Allison" wrote in message
news:5uvrkpF1jhh2nU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson"
>>
>> Ms Wood,
>>
>> I appreciate that you need to take defamation seriously. Dymocks did not
>> write the material. Dymocks, by selling the book in question, would not
>> be
>> defaming anyone.
>
>
> ** This is where you are 100%, dead wrong.
>
> Defamation occurs when the defamatory material is disseminated to others -
> ie " published ".
>
> The central issue in defamation is the actual * harm done * to a person
> or organisation, not the mere writing of defamatory material. The harm is
> done by the publication.
**Yep and Dymocks is not the publisher.
>
> If a newspaper publishes a letter or article that defames a person, the
> newspaper risks becoming the target of legal action.
**Yep and Dymocks is not the publisher.
>
> Dymocks are merely being cautious in circumstances where litigation over
> the material is clearly imminent.
**IF the defamation action proceeds (and there is no assurance that it
will), THEN Dymocks may be well advised to withdraw the publication. ATM,
there is no case to answer. Dymocks is just responding to pressure from a
well-funded organisation.
The real problem here is the 'Church' of Scientology. They will use any
weapon they can, in order to prevent any bad press. Scaring off the two
largest booksellers in the country is just scurrilous. To see these
companies just 'rolling-over' stinks.
Trevor Wilson
|