AS at February 8th 2022 comments were no longer accepted on articles. (they have since been reinstated for members ONLY) 

The fact of the February 8th 2022 decision was that each and every comment MUST be moderated by myself before it was published.  That process required that I read every single comment and then either Approve or Refuse. If I Approve the comment I become the publisher of that comment and, as such, become liable for that comment. It would be me who is sued for your defamatory remark. 

Rather than pore over every comment and make the decision to publish or not I felt it was safer for me to no longer provide the outlet. This was a shame because there are excellent commentators here who abide by the rules but alas, they are outnumbered by the continued stream of keyboard warriors who wish to express themselves outside of the rules of publishing. 

On 8 September 2021, the High Court ruled that media outlets are legally responsible for defamatory comments made by the public on posts published on an organisation's Facebook pages. The decision has consequences for all media organisations who run social media pages or have commenting features on their websites. If the default setting enabling comments on a post is not changed, this is considered to be an invitation or encouragement to comment. If someone posts a defamatory comment - the media organisation who owns the page is legally considered a "publisher" of the comments and can be sued. 

Due to the risks associated with comments from unidentified contributors that expose The Beagle to possible legal actions under the NSW Defamation Act 2005 No 77 comments were NO LONGER available. 

More recent comments made by Members are being very closely monitored and any breeches will see the Member blocked, the coment removed and possibly the removal of the commenting and Members Forum section removed as well.

PS. Feel free to email us via our normal or encrypted email accounts. Letters to the Editor are encouraged. 

Please note that if you are looking for a previous comment that is no longer visible please contact us.

And before you consider any proceedings of defamation: 
 

DEFAMATION ACT 2005 - SECT 25

Defence of justification

25 Defence of justification

It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true.

 

DEFAMATION ACT 2005 - SECT 31

Defences of honest opinion

31 Defences of honest opinion

 

(1) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that--

(a) the matter was an expression of opinion of the defendant rather than a statement of fact, and

(b) the opinion related to a matter of public interest, and

(c) the opinion is based on proper material.

(2) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that--

(a) the matter was an expression of opinion of an employee or agent of the defendant rather than a statement of fact, and

(b) the opinion related to a matter of public interest, and

(c) the opinion is based on proper material.

(3) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that--

(a) the matter was an expression of opinion of a person (the
"commentator" ), other than the defendant or an employee or agent of the defendant, rather than a statement of fact, and

(b) the opinion related to a matter of public interest, and

(c) the opinion is based on proper material.

(4) A defence established under this section is defeated if, and only if, the plaintiff proves that--

(a) in the case of a defence under subsection (1)--the opinion was not honestly held by the defendant at the time the defamatory matter was published, or

(b) in the case of a defence under subsection (2)--the defendant did not believe that the opinion was honestly held by the employee or agent at the time the defamatory matter was published, or

(c) in the case of a defence under subsection (3)--the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that the opinion was not honestly held by the commentator at the time the defamatory matter was published.

(5) For the purposes of this section, an opinion is
"based on proper material" if--

(a) the material on which it is based is--

(i) set out in specific or general terms in the published matter, or

(ii) notorious, or

(iii) accessible from a reference, link or other access point included in the matter (for example, a hyperlink on a webpage), or

(iv) otherwise apparent from the context in which the matter is published, and

(b) the material--

(i) is substantially true, or

(ii) was published on an occasion of absolute or qualified privilege (whether under this Act or at general law), or

(iii) was published on an occasion that attracted the protection of a defence under this section or section 28 or 29.

(6) An opinion does not cease to be based on proper material only because some of the material on which it is based is not proper material if the opinion might reasonably be based on such of the material as is proper material.

Further reading