"Trevor Wilson"
"Phil Allison"
>
>>> 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.
** They are " publishing " the book by selling it to the public - you dumb
ass.
This is the legal meaning of the word, means to disseminate or inform
others.
>> 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.
** They are "publishing" the book by selling it to the public.
The harm is done by disseminating the defamatory contents to the public.
That is what they can be sued for.
>> 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 do not wish to have to answer one in the future - ie that they
supplied the book to the public with reckless disregard for the harm doing
that would likely cause the subjects on the book.
The people and the organisation concerned have announced that much of the
material is completely false and highly defamatory to them and that they
intend to sue to have publication made illegal.
Any business selling the book now could be held liable for damages in the
future.
Dymocks are acting responsibly and following what the law requires in the
circumstances.
OTOH - you are just a ignorant ass.
....... Phil
|