Rocker wrote:IMO don't.
Always ends up in a s**t storm for those involved.
People egging him on to do it, write them yourself and you publish it so you're responsible.
<<Genesis93>> wrote:You can't defame someone by printing their words as they wrote themselves . ....
Die Judicii wrote:Settle down for Fxck sake you blokes.
I asked the Shooters Union Australia for advice on this matter.
They report that they are unable to provide a legal opinion, but suggested I make a formal complaint to the ACMA.
This would be concerning the manner in which my complaint to the seven network was dealt with; as well, to add a further complaint
in relation to the construed attempt to stifle or prevent me from having my right to freedom of speech.
I have done this, and lodged the complaint.
Now it is time for a little patience.
Die Judicii wrote:Up date >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The ACMA made contact today asking for further info which I have dutifully supplied.
They also made mention that they have noted that the seven network had made the "Not For Publication" move.
Again, it's back to patiently waiting.
Die Judicii wrote:Up date >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The ACMA made contact today asking for further info which I have dutifully supplied.
They also made mention that they have noted that the seven network had made the "Not For Publication" move.
Again, it's back to patiently waiting.
Title_II wrote:What agreement did you sign?
They sent you something and retroactively said you can't share it. That can't be legally binding.
Send them an email saying you are going to jerk off on their front door knob but they can't tell anyone.
adam wrote:Yes I believe he was being rhetorical. ie - He was pointing out that you didn't sign any agreement with them, so why do you believe you're obligated to follow their instructions.
I personally believe that it's a scare tactic. Ch 7 probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you were to publish the document, but moreso a bluff. However I don't blame you for not knowing and having doubts (which I would too) - which is what I bet they're counting on...
sandgroperbill wrote:Easy to be brave when you're not the one with the risk.
Nope, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but that doesn't mean they couldn't start a frivolous court case. Yes, they would have to pay your legal fees at the end, but you'd still be pouring out money in the mean time.
<<Genesis93>> wrote:So...... you've only got 1 ball? begs the question, what happened to the other
happyhunter wrote:Pussy.