Yes, bluebeard - to defame someone you have to damage their reputation etc, to do that someone else has to believe your lies/untruths and act on them to the detriment of the plaintiff. It is not enough to just to tell lies - there has to detriment caused, that is how it applies here.

So in rcgreen's case that would apply exactly - due to the restrictive web-filtering no-one heard/saw the offending remark it would stand that defamation could not been done. Hope that clears that up. It was written with the tongue planted firmly in the cheek

The jury returns a not guilty finding, sleep ease my friend.

Seriously though, what I am saying is it looks like this case is going to boil down to where the damage was caused not where it was created.

An American can be charged under Australian law if the crime is committed in Australia - I believe this is going to be the crux of the legal arguement along with the alleged damages Gutnick is going to allege happened because of the article. Like I said its going to be interesting - stay tuned.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." ---Pascal Pensees (1670)