<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Pace Legal  Online Business &#187; libel tourism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pacelegal.com.au/tag/libel-tourism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pacelegal.com.au</link>
	<description>Practical &#38; Legal Tips For Online Traders</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:51:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Twitter defamation &#8211; Cairns v Modi [2010]</title>
		<link>http://pacelegal.com.au/twitter-defamation-cairns-v-modi/</link>
		<comments>http://pacelegal.com.au/twitter-defamation-cairns-v-modi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:18:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Online defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Amoudi v Brisard [2006] EWHC 1062 (QB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cairns v Modi [2010] EWHC 2859 (QB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Lance Cairns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cricinfo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamatory publication online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamatory tweet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. Godfrey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert evidence tweet distribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forseeability of harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indian Premier League]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jameel v Dow Jones & Co [2005] QB 946]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lalit Moda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel tourism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mardas v New York Times Company & Anor [2008]]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[match fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prospect of vindication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[publication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real and substantial tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[republication of defamatory tweet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[service outside the jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[substantial publication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter.com]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=953</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cairns v  Modi [2010] clearly established that tweets on Twitter can result in libel claims, and considered expert evidence on the distribution of Tweets and the likelihood followers actually read their tweets.  <a href="http://pacelegal.com.au/twitter-defamation-cairns-v-modi/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://pacelegal.com.au/twitter-defamation-cairns-v-modi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Britain may reform online defamation laws</title>
		<link>http://pacelegal.com.au/britain-may-reform-online-defamation-laws/</link>
		<comments>http://pacelegal.com.au/britain-may-reform-online-defamation-laws/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Online defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[10 March 2009)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duke of Brunswick case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Convention on Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gregoire v GP Putnam's Sons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel tourism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loutchansky v Times Newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[multiple publication rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reform of Britain online defamation law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[single publication rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos 1 and 2) v United Kingdom (Applications 3002/03 and 23676/03]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Human Rights Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK internet defamation consultation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=514</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The internet never forgets. Internet libel and the permanence of content appearing on the web has given rise to a large number of lawsuits against newspapers and other publishers of material online. In traditional libel actions plaintiffs must file suits &#8230; <a href="http://pacelegal.com.au/britain-may-reform-online-defamation-laws/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://pacelegal.com.au/britain-may-reform-online-defamation-laws/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

