[LINK] Crimenet Site

[Adam Todd]

At 11:24 5/06/00 +1000, Rick Welykochy wrote:
>Presume that the Victorian Court finds Crimenet (or its owner)
>in contempt, and the owner moves the site offshore.
>
>Would any legal beagles like to comment on the effectivesnes of
>such a ploy? Surely the contempt still exists in the eyes of the court,

Maybe not quite as far as that in it's entirety and I'm not a legal beagle, 
but ...

The AJTODD Kidnapping site was under similar concern by the Department of 
Community Services.  They were concerned that the Accuracy of the content 
of Scanned documents and their signatures might not be entirely correct. 
(Scanned??)

They sort advice from the Crown Solicitors office, whom upon an 
investigation found that it would not be economical to try and issue 
injunctions as the site was mirrored in over 90 countries. That the content 
would exist on the Internet no matter what happened locally.  To seek 
injunctions in other countries was complex and even more costly especially 
as some countries have extensive freedom of speech rights.

That was all there was to it.

So, in short, if Crimenet went offshore, mirrored itself in a few 
countries, there is NOTHING that can be done, at least not with ease.

>since the owner stills resides and conducts his business in
>Australia. The physical location of the server would seem to
>be of little consequence when the larger issue of ownership
>of the publication and intention of the owner are concerned.

Who says he might be an owner?  He might sell it off!

>Or will it take yet another precedent-setting case to establish
>culpability?

Yep, no doubt.  Oh and before we run around screaming examples of UK law 
and Dragonnet or whatever it was.  I wish to advise that there is a current 
and affective piece of Legislation that nullified any UK based precedents 
after some date - I forget which exactly, but lets say most of us on this 
list won't be concerned as any use would predate our births!