Comments on: Crikey to be sued (again) http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/ "The thinking Laborite would as lief be found in bed with a cobra as in a committee room armed with 'arguments' from the Tory press." --- Truth, Perth, 19 June 1915. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:29:18 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Flashman http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/comment-page-1/#comment-8906 Flashman Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:30:56 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/#comment-8906 Still no word about this on the Crikey site, unless I'm missing something. (I don't get the subscriber emails.) Could be on legal advice? Still no word about this on the Crikey site, unless I’m missing something. (I don’t get the subscriber emails.) Could be on legal advice?

]]> By: ab http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/comment-page-1/#comment-8897 ab Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:55:54 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/#comment-8897 I think Rehame are barking up the wrong tree with a defo action, the only liability there, is their own employee leaking docs a punishable act but not via legal action. Even then I think that employee has a right to utilize corporate whistleblower legislation. Without adequate protection against corporations suing independents in the media, it's just a pathetic McLibel all over again. If it looks bad for Rehame, in the eyes of their clients, to have employees with loose lips, maybe they should pay them more -I don't think being seen as bullying corporate fatcats is going to do their p.r strategy any good. Shame Australia's constitution was founded on the backs of human rights violations of the impoverished, so that the government didn't want to give them a right to freedom of speech and still don't, obviously. It as been said that the Howard government has had the best effect on the Australian economy in the country's history, but it is just a matter of the Pareto principle - catering for the needs of big business and silencing all opposition, through stifling the independent media with oppressive legislation which can only be used by the rich. I think Rehame are barking up the wrong tree with a defo action, the only liability there, is their own employee leaking docs a punishable act but not via legal action. Even then I think that employee has a right to utilize corporate whistleblower legislation.

Without adequate protection against corporations suing independents in the media, it’s just a pathetic McLibel all over again.

If it looks bad for Rehame, in the eyes of their clients, to have employees with loose lips, maybe they should pay them more -I don’t think being seen as bullying corporate fatcats is going to do their p.r strategy any good.

Shame Australia’s constitution was founded on the backs of human rights violations of the impoverished, so that the government didn’t want to give them a right to freedom of speech and still don’t, obviously.

It as been said that the Howard government has had the best effect on the Australian economy in the country’s history, but it is just a matter of the Pareto principle – catering for the needs of big business and silencing all opposition, through stifling the independent media with oppressive legislation which can only be used by the rich.

]]> By: Craig http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/comment-page-1/#comment-8885 Craig Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:47:29 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/#comment-8885 After reading the article Rehame's is basing their legal action on, I am left wondering what grounds they have. It seemed like a fairly tame article really. After reading the article Rehame’s is basing their legal action on, I am left wondering what grounds they have. It seemed like a fairly tame article really.

]]> By: Flashman http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/comment-page-1/#comment-8881 Flashman Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:10:19 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/#comment-8881 Though the article was yanked from Crikey.com.au, it still lingers within the bowels of Google's Website Cache. I won't publish the link - Google's caches can be a bit unstable, and I don't know where the law would place me on this - but it's easy enough to find if you know the right keywords, and limit the site search to Crikey. The original link, for those who are interested, was this: http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/03/005-0001-4366.html Though the article was yanked from Crikey.com.au, it still lingers within the bowels of Google’s Website Cache.

I won’t publish the link – Google’s caches can be a bit unstable, and I don’t know where the law would place me on this – but it’s easy enough to find if you know the right keywords, and limit the site search to Crikey.

The original link, for those who are interested, was this:
http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/03/005-0001-4366.html

]]> By: Amanda http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/comment-page-1/#comment-8868 Amanda Wed, 09 Mar 2005 20:22:32 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/#comment-8868 Ha!! As someone who works in the industry (I'm one of those "disgruntled former Rehame employees"), I thought every word of the article was true. Ha!!

As someone who works in the industry (I’m one of those “disgruntled former Rehame employees”), I thought every word of the article was true.

]]> By: weezil http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/comment-page-1/#comment-8859 weezil Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:32:56 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2005/03/09/crikey/#comment-8859 Go gittem Stevo. Go gittem Stevo.

]]>