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

[Peter J. Nicol]

> > 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?>

For those that are interested, it is *not* always the case that if it is
true, then it is not defamatory.  In many (most?) common law courts,
something is still defamatory, even if it is true, if it was intended to
cause hurt or damage etc.  Strange but true.

Western Australia is one of the few states in Australia where truth *is* a
defence against defamation.

Point being that spammer is a prejorative term.  Your 'spam' is my marketing
material etc etc.  That is, there may be no legal acceptable definition.

Personally, I wish the courts and the politicians (a curse on all of them)
stay out of this, and let technological solutions sort out the mess.