I am exercising my rights of freedom of expression .
If u find it is offensive.Pl post in this thread AND PM me
within 6 hours
from my time of posting.I am at my liberty at my time frame
to deal with your compliants,no time frame imposed.
u canNOT sue me under any jurisdictions.OK?
I am not liable if u dunt follow my rules of game.OK?
OUR learned lawyer here seems saying he is not liable for
any e mail(s),if it is found really sent(ONLY IF),from US to insult
SG Judge 2 years ago.
I am sorry to share with u guys that even if SG follow the
great
and democratic Australia case
Dow Jones & Company Inc v
Gutnick (2003)
,he seems liable to be dealt
with within Singapore jurisdictions and by Singapore laws.
Neither US jurisdiction nor laws apply.
Following the decision in Dow Jones & Company Inc v
Gutnick (2003) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-682, Australian courts,
at least, will treat defamatory material on a server outside
Australia as having been published in Australia if it is downloaded
or read by someone in Australia. Under private international law, a
plaintiff successful in obtaining a judgment against, for example,
an American defendant in an Australian court may then enforce that
judgment against a person domiciled in the United States through
the US legal system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html
121 Enforceability of judgments: Any rule adopted with
respect to publication of defamatory
matter on the Internet must eventually face the practical
question concerning the enforceability of a judgment recovered in
such proceedings. The balance that is struck between freedom of expression and access to
information and protection of
individual reputation, honour and privacy tends to be a
subject about which divergent views exist in the laws of different
countries.
<!--make_database:
source=/home/philip/austlii/db/HCA/data/2002_56.html-->
<!--sino date 10 December 2002-->
Last Updated: 5 February 2003
GLEESON CJ,
GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ
DOW JONES & COMPANY INC APPELLANT
AND
JOSEPH GUTNICK RESPONDENT
Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick
[2002] HCA 56
10 December 2002
M3/2002
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Facts
169 The appellant publishes for profit the Wall Street
Journal, a daily financial newspaper, and Barron's, a
weekly magazine, which is also concerned with financial matters.
The edition of Barron's dated Monday, 30 October 2000, but
which was available publicly two days earlier, contained an article
by a journalist working for the appellant, Bill Alpert, headed
"Unholy Gains" and sub-headed "When stock promoters cross paths
with religious charities, investors had best be on guard." A large
photograph of the respondent appeared on the first page of the
magazine.
The article, of about 7,000 words, also contained photographs of
other persons including Mr Nachum Goldberg. Barron's has a
large circulation in the United States. Altogether, it was likely
that 305,563 copies of the magazine were sold. A small number of
them entered Australia, some of which were sold in Victoria.
Barron's also put the article on the Internet.
The relevant article appeared on the appellant's website on 29
October 2000. Subscribers who paid an annual fee were able to
obtain access to that site at its address wsj.com. The site had
about 550,000 subscribers. The appellant has an office that it
calls a "corporate campus" in New Jersey where it has a web server
on which its website is stored. It was conceded by the appellant
that it could not identify the addresses of all of its subscribers
but that 1,700 or so of them paid subscription fees by credit cards
whose holders had Australian addresses.
As far as the Email to Judge Lai Sui Chu, this was more than 2
years ago. I cannot remember if I sent that Email. Even if I did, I
was not in Singapore at the time. I was physically in Fremont,
Northern California. If I sent the Email, it was from Fremont
Northern California.
DISCLAIMER:
The above is just for general discussions and not intended
as professional legal advices.
The public shall consult their SG (and US) lawyers for any
specified case.
The White House,Pentagon,CIA,Dept of State etc
have been duly briefed and mandatory updated every 2
hours,24/7.
Ambassdor may be summoned to brief on this big #$%$% case
Diplomatic protest has been drafted and approved,
waiting for instruction to be submitted.
