Has anyone checking out the Darkside noticed this post?
Those of you who have been following the roiling disaster that is Pure Poison will know that the Post that got them into so much hot water was written by a chap who went by the the name of “Ant Rogenous” now this author has proven himself to be a total clown and I can only wonder just how much his unfounded accusations against Tim Blair has actually cost Crikey in damages and lost prestige.
Oh the humanity!
Cheers Comrades
Advertisement
Where is their apology for accusing me of being Tim Blair’s wife and Ray Dixon?
That is outrageous and I demand an apology too. I am NOT anyone’s girlfriend and I have never even met Tim Blair.
I can assure you that one Groupthink brownshirt has in the past pretended to be Tim Blair.
Yes Gentlemen,
its funny how they were so cocky like prize roosters way back then and now that they are feather dusters they are so silent
I noticed that neither Scotty or Jezza have made any comment at their blogs re this. That would surely qualify as intellectual dishonesty, flimsy argument and distorted data in any reasonable person’s book, and SHOULD therefore be exposed at PP. Because they’re doing their bit to hold the opinion-makers to these standards.
Que?
Oh I see.
That would be a blog vortex and might swallow the web.
My mistake.
And why are the comments closed on that thread and there are no comments re this thread in the OPEN thread “to discuss things that aren’t covered in the other discussions.”??????????????????
Jim
My best guess is that the apology was required as part of the settlement and that none of the Pee Pee boys have permission to to talk about it from Crikey, either there or at their own blogs. They certainly hope that it soon goes away as an issue so expect a flurry of posts soon to hide it way down the list of topics
Their useful idiots will just think that Tim Blair et al are just being unfair , after all how dare they defend their good names by using the law as anyone is entitled to do when they are defamed.
Don’t they fly in the face of society Iain. What kind of a revolutionary allows his freedom of speech to be removed so easily?
Fooled again, Iain. That isn’t Ant! That’s George Athanasi!
PS. You”re really keen on saving photos of people, aren’t you? Keep it stalky!
Damian
Why are your running interference on this?
This reminds me of the time that Bolt was sued for defamation.
Could be another case of horseshoe theory.
Somehow I don’t think that comment is from the Leon Bertrand we all know. I’m not sure why Leon would be using this page as his URL address:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:L%C3%A9on_Bertrand.jpg
Iain
Damian is running interferance because he’s the only one of there throng that’s not plauing at PP and so he’s the only one allowed to run at all.
The rest are in the sin bin.
Ray,
Leon has archived his blog so citing it as his home page is not really viable anymore
Jim
You may be right about Damian Doyle being close enough to the action but not actually covered by and confidentaility agreement.
Damian
The fact of the matter are this: despite Crikey having to apologize (and most likely to pay any damages ) “Ant” was the person who caused the problem in the first place so it is entirely reasonable and in the public interest that he should be named and his picture should be published. I am not in a position to do the former but I quite reasonably saved every image published at Grods during the hight of the campaign against me and for that I make no apology.
Of course! Photo hoarding and online stalking is “in the public interest”. You’re a real hero, Hall.
Still, until you can verify Ant/George/Simon’s identity, you should rename that image “unidentified Grodite”.
Tell ya what. Send me a bottle of Scotch and I’ll give you Ant’s name and address. The public will thank us both.
Hilarious, Hall. Things haven’t changed here, have they? Still hoarding and publishing people’s photos withour permission (twice in the last week). Still relying on the same sad-arsed crew of commenters.
You should take these events as a warning, if you ask me. Bloggers aren’t above the law, including those governing the persistent harassment of people online. (You and your mates might want to acquaint yourselves with Queensland’s laws on this front).
Anyway, for two bottles of scotch I’ll tell you Toaf’s real name.
Damian
The image has the same name given to it when it was originally published. so there is no need or reason to rename it.
Jason
there are rumours and suggestions that Crikey’s payout to Tim Blair has been enough for him to think about buyong a flash car with the money, as a student of the media can you tell why identifying the person who caused the slight against Mr Blair is not in the public interest?
We are not just talking about some petty blog spat here we are talking about an action that has cost Crikey a large amount of money and the humiliation of having to apologize. Yet still you think that the actual author of the defamation should remain anonymous?
Iain, let me put it this way.
(a) You might get yourself into trouble believing (let alone publishing) rumours and suggestions one of these days.
(b) You are not the Internet police, nor would I consider this blog an organ of public record. Further, I think “the public interest” is the least of your concerns at this blog.
(c) The legal action you posted about, in a real sense, changes the atmosphere in the blogosphere. I’m trying to pass on some advice to you: that you should see this as a warning. You may not get another one.
Jason
What rumours? what suggestions? That Tim Blair is may be buying a car with the payout from Crikey? I offer no opinion of the veracity of that suggestion.
I am not claiming to be the “Internet police”, just a citizen with an opinion about the morality of anonymous sniping at named individuals
Yes I agree that the incident in question may have repercussions to the nature of blogging , especially for anonymous posting that defames real people. However given your relationship to the players in this little drama you are hardly the disinterested observer that you pretend to be.
Goodness me.
Let me take you all the way back to your own previous post in the thread.
Next, Hall attempts to lecture me on morality:
What about publishing pictures of innocent people?
I’m not claiming to be a disinterested observer. I’m just passing on a warning. I would say that you yourself have arguably done things in the past which might or might not have had legal repercussions if people weren’t so generous/uninterested in pursuing you. The stuff you’re gloating about may have the effect of making people less forgiving of other bloggers’ transgressions in future. Don’t shoot the messenger, Iain.
You have been warmed Iain and you should not publish my posts inferencing that artists painted a fake winning art prize piece.
(PS: If that made no cents it’s because I am now very rattled by these warmings)
Jason.
In what way could this be construed as anything but idle speculation? There is No possible way that saying this is at all problematic for me.
Define “Innocent”
On whose behalf are you warning me?
Bollocks! The reason that I have not been pursued with legal action is that the people involved know that their own hands are far from clean and that they would have pursue me in their own names. You do realise that it is legally impossible to defame a pseudonym don’t you?
As i see it Jason, if bloggers are the new citizen journalists then they are under the same obligations to be truthful in what they write and to substantiate any claims they make when they hit the publish button as any Peon in the employ of any paper.Your pals thought that they could continue to make claims with impunity because they were anonymous .
I welcome this development to blogging Jason, But then I would given the sorts of crap that I have endured from your pals .
You’re hilarious, Socky. Keep it up, mate.
Iain:
Well, that’s exactly what might get you into trouble one day.
People who you have no quarrel with, as in the pictures of people you don’t even know which you published on one of your other blogs.
I’m warning you in the spirit of blogospheric brotherhood, Iain. Not on anyone’s behalf.
Of course, but there are other laws besides defamation that are applicable to these situations.
Finally, who are “my pals”, Iain?
You’re hilarious, Socky. Keep it up, mate
I will add this quote to my testiclemonials.
There are indeed laws about online harassment. I’ve recently had to give a statement to police about the origins of some comments made on my blog. It’s a long story and it doesn’t directly involve me, except the bloke in question was just going around the Internet making random derogatory comments about a female ex-co-worker and put up a couple on my blog (which I thought were fictitious).
Anyway, I had a long talk with the police officer and it seems his whole job involves this sort of work (tracking harrassment on the Internet). However, he explained that in order for it to be considered illegal the recipient must have genuine cause to feel afraid.
I can’t see how this fits in this case.
Depends what “this case” is, Ray. And laws vary between jurisdictions.
In both cases. i.e. Case 1: The photo. Case 2: The rumour about Blair buying a car …
“2″ is just an example of Iain’s bad behaviour; “1″ is an example of Iain being careless. I’m not saying either of those is actionable, just issuing a general warning that Iain might like to be careful given the new litigiousness in the blogosphere.
Jason,
Idle speculation that is most clearly cited as rumour and not claimed as a fact will get no one into trouble Jason.
How pray tell is it “careless” to link to a freely published image of the author of the piece in question? Even in terms of copyright it would come under fair use for the purposes of criticism or review and why is it bad behaviour to repeat a rumour and say that it is clearly just a rumour?
Iain, I’m not that interested in debating the ins and outs of everything you do. I’m just trying to draw your attention to something. Anyway, I admire your confidence. Just remember this conversation if trouble ever does come your way, okay?
Jason
I have had five years of crap from your pals so don’t be surprised that I feel just a little schadenfreude when one of the crew get into some strife.