<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Digest &#8211; Jan 31 2010</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thestory.ie/2010/01/31/digest-jan-31-2010/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thestory.ie/2010/01/31/digest-jan-31-2010/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:59:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The libel laws and Irish bloggers &#124; Journalist.ie</title>
		<link>http://thestory.ie/2010/01/31/digest-jan-31-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-2008</link>
		<dc:creator>The libel laws and Irish bloggers &#124; Journalist.ie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:42:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thestory.ie/?p=1066#comment-2008</guid>
		<description>[...] thestory.ie, Mark Coughlan remarked: “The blog which is the subject of the story is so obscure that Google [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] thestory.ie, Mark Coughlan remarked: “The blog which is the subject of the story is so obscure that Google [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cearta.ie » Trouble in the Blog O’Sphere</title>
		<link>http://thestory.ie/2010/01/31/digest-jan-31-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-1973</link>
		<dc:creator>cearta.ie » Trouble in the Blog O’Sphere</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:04:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thestory.ie/?p=1066#comment-1973</guid>
		<description>[...] of the message remain the same. But the story does raise some interesting legal issues. Mark Coughlan on TheStory.ie pointed out that, before the storm blew up this week, Ardmayle had been &quot;little known, to say [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of the message remain the same. But the story does raise some interesting legal issues. Mark Coughlan on TheStory.ie pointed out that, before the storm blew up this week, Ardmayle had been &#8220;little known, to say [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TJ</title>
		<link>http://thestory.ie/2010/01/31/digest-jan-31-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-1943</link>
		<dc:creator>TJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:01:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thestory.ie/?p=1066#comment-1943</guid>
		<description>Leaving aside the specifics of the Laura Barnes case, there is a more general point to be made highlighting the importance of keeping good server logs.

The level of damages in defamation reflects the extent of publication - i.e. the extent to which the defamatory material was actually read. This is not (despite the best efforts of plaintiffs&#039; lawyers) the same as the extent to which it &lt;i&gt;might&lt;/i&gt; have been read. Consequently (leaving aside other factors such as the gravity of the allegations) damages should be greatly reduced where the audience can be shown to be negligible. &lt;i&gt;Potential&lt;/i&gt; readability worldwide notwithstanding.

Unfortunately, in the absence of server logs, it is going to be very difficult to rebut a plaintiff who claims that the material appeared quite high in search engine rankings, may have been read worldwide, etc. Consequently a defendant in that position is likely to be on the back foot, especially where a judge assumes that availability online automatically equals a mass audience.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Leaving aside the specifics of the Laura Barnes case, there is a more general point to be made highlighting the importance of keeping good server logs.</p>
<p>The level of damages in defamation reflects the extent of publication &#8211; i.e. the extent to which the defamatory material was actually read. This is not (despite the best efforts of plaintiffs&#8217; lawyers) the same as the extent to which it <i>might</i> have been read. Consequently (leaving aside other factors such as the gravity of the allegations) damages should be greatly reduced where the audience can be shown to be negligible. <i>Potential</i> readability worldwide notwithstanding.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, in the absence of server logs, it is going to be very difficult to rebut a plaintiff who claims that the material appeared quite high in search engine rankings, may have been read worldwide, etc. Consequently a defendant in that position is likely to be on the back foot, especially where a judge assumes that availability online automatically equals a mass audience.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://thestory.ie/2010/01/31/digest-jan-31-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-1940</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thestory.ie/?p=1066#comment-1940</guid>
		<description>100,000 Euros is like winning the lotto for most people but probably small change to the recipients in the blogger case. Any chance you could libel me in this blog?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>100,000 Euros is like winning the lotto for most people but probably small change to the recipients in the blogger case. Any chance you could libel me in this blog?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
