Yay Jeremy (was Re: [plug] Spam sender sues)

[Ben Jensz]

"Jeremy Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.wattle.id.au> wrote in message
news:3CFEC719.225C5007 at Malcolm.wattle.id.au...
> Andrew Furey wrote:
> >
> > > There could also be a defamation issue.  No-one is
> > > obliged to route email
> > > through their networks if they don't want to, but it
> > > could be argued that
> > > sending some-ones name to a blacklist is denoting
> > > them (say) a 'spammer' ...
> > > this could be found to be defamatory.
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong Jeremy :)... but isn't it only
> > defamation if it's untrue? Or am I thinking of
> > something else?
>
> (I love it when people in the same office as me ask me questions on
> the PLUG list instead of calling out down the hall.)  Yes you are
> right Andrew, in any case, they cannot amend their claim to argue
> defamation.  They would have to bring a fresh action.
>

I don't see how it could be defamation anyway, purely based on the
definition of "spam".  Do they deny that they carry out what is defined as
"spam"?

NOIE's definition of spam is here:
http://www.noie.gov.au/Projects/consumer/Spam/Info.htm#Whatisspam

Quoting directly:

In recognition of the legitimacy of many direct marketing practices, this
office would not generally regard as spam direct marketing communications
that:
- do not promote illegal, offensive or deceptive content;
- do not collect or use personal information in breach of the recent
extensions of the Privacy Act to business; and,
- are sent to recipients who have consented to receiving e-mail
communications of the type being sent.

I've received "direct marketing" email from the "Maverick Partnership" on my
work email addresses several times, that certainly wasn't solicited.  So
according to the NOIE definition of "spam", that would partake in sending
spam.


/ Ben