<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Martin Stabe - Latest Comments in Bloggers and libel: bad news</title><link>http://martinstabe.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:50:49 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Bloggers and libel: bad news</title><link>http://www.martinstabe.com/blog/2005/03/14/bloggers-and-libel-bad-news/#comment-1927625</link><description>Didnt Dow Jones lose a libel case in Australia over the very same issue? That something downloaded in Australia was therefore published there and so subject to Aussie libel laws?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tim Worstall</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:50:49 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bloggers and libel: bad news</title><link>http://www.martinstabe.com/blog/2005/03/14/bloggers-and-libel-bad-news/#comment-1927624</link><description>Are bloggers also at the same risk as the online archived versions of newspaper articles, which they may quote or comment on, from the &lt;strong&gt;retrospective censorship&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Contempt of Court&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br&gt;liabilities envisaged by the &lt;a href="http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/archives/2004/11/attorney_genera.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith&lt;/a&gt; ?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Watching Them, Watching Us</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:25:29 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>