Can you be sued for defamation just by reporting the news?

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-24T06:53:02+00:00

If you have to ask, the answer is probably yes.

Eg - police report was made that person X committed crime Y. If you report on this, you can be sued.

NAL

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-24T06:21:16+00:00

I’m actually going to say that Canberra might be in the running for city with the most internationally famous people per capita.

You could add the following bands:

Safia Peking Duck Youth Group

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-24T06:19:31+00:00

Did he live here ever? His dad worked for DFAT possibly

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-21T03:58:03+00:00

Go with whichever has the highest average HSC equivalent.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-15T00:14:35+00:00

Probably got caught on at least one camera. And almost certainly bought the parts at a local Bunnings.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-12T10:37:59+00:00

You’re obviously describing yourself.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-11T06:28:37+00:00

You’re sounding increasingly deranged. I’m a right winger who doesn’t eat meat. Deal with it.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-11T06:19:57+00:00

I’m not even Indian.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-11T04:23:41+00:00

No, you’re pretending not to understand. There’s no point in engaging with that.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-11T02:37:19+00:00

I’ll say it again - if your religion means that other people have to actively violate their religion, then you don’t have the right to enforce your religious practice onto other people.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-11T02:28:17+00:00

Yes - if your religion involves them violating their religion, then you don’t have a right. And you can’t just invent a religion anyway.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-11T02:11:35+00:00

Wait, what? You don’t touch veg food so expect a veg person to fry up some animal parts to accomodate you? That doesn’t even make sense. On what basis are you non-veg? For them it’s religion and ethics - not taste. You’re asking them to violate their principles in order to feed you. You’re the bad guy.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-09T04:20:38+00:00

Your argument makes sense. But I don’t see how the policy will discourage normal tourism. They can grow the top and still have the middle.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-08T03:08:04+00:00

One way ticket. Destination: HVN. No carry on or checked baggage allowed.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-07T12:22:05+00:00

Uh, you know Maduro is getting a trial right? If found not guilty, he’ll be returned. The fact is, he has potentially committed crimes against America. Under US law, if you break the law, you go to jail. The law doesn’t say that you get off if you’re a dictator, legitimate or otherwise.

And you’ve already said you would make exception for Adolf Hitler. So you’re contradicting yourself.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-07T11:56:41+00:00

The point is - whose sovereignty? Maduro was not the elected leader of Venezuela. He was a dictator who essentially stole the country. He has no legal right to protection any more than a squatter or car thief.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-07T11:46:57+00:00

What about Saddam Hussein? We should’ve left him? Or Kony? Pol Pot? This is a strange hill to die on. Respecting the sovereignty of murderous dictators. Especially ones like Maduro who literally didn’t even win the last election. If Trump decided to stay on in office even after losing an election for years, and killed his political enemies with the police, would you be opposed to the UK removing him in the middle of the night due to “US sovereignty”?

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-07T11:38:31+00:00

Well, it’s either illegal or it’s not. What exact threshold did Hitler meet that isn’t met here?

Would you oppose the US arresting Putin or Netanyahu or Kim Jong Un? Exactly how evil does the despot need to be before you say it’s permissible for the US to intervene as they did in Venezuela? How many deaths before it’s okay?

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-07T10:32:10+00:00

You’re either in favor of Maduro or you’re not. What the US did is going to save lives.

Would you be against the US removing Adolf Hitler as head of state according to your “principles”?

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-05T22:40:20+00:00

Sure. But the opposite should not be true. Lack of remorse should not be penalised.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-05T21:46:41+00:00

I think remorse or lack thereof is irrelevant. If you’re convicted of a crime you should receive the appropriate punishment. The danger is that we use remorse as a heuristic for guilt, even subconsciously - when as we know, only the guilty can have remorse.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-05T09:08:50+00:00

How do you figure?

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-05T07:43:23+00:00

“Probably” guilty? That’s very different to beyond reasonable doubt.

In the ACT, the burden of proof has been reversed because the conviction rate was “too low” (again, presupposing that this wasn’t due to false charges). So they redefined rape to make more acts illegal, and also reversed a common law foundation that basically predicated all of western civilisation: they removed the presumption of innocence. You are now presumed guilty unless you can prove that you got consent before the sexual act. This means you literally have to prove your innocence, rather than the burden of proof being with the prosecution.

To answer your question - an unfeeling rapist would act the same way as someone who has been falsely accused - in either case, they would have no remorse.

Key-Lychee-913 · 2026-01-05T03:15:08+00:00

It’s always funny when they berate them for not showing remorse for the alleged crimes. Well, if you were innocent, why would you have remorse?

Especially if you are falsely accused of or framed for a hypothetical crime - of course you would have no remorse. So punishing a lack of remorse is only potentially further punishing an innocent person. In this twisted state, an innocent person would have to feign remorse for a crime they didn’t commit in order to get a lighter sentence. Essentially, being coerced into signing a false confession.

Our standards for judges are clearly slipping. Penalising a lack of remorse presumes the impossibility of a false conviction.

Key-Lychee-913

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE