excuse me. But that’s almost precisely what I’m talking about in my previous post. You have no understanding at all of tte law, the matter that was being considered and what the judgment meant
let’s start with some basics
it was not a criminal trial lehrmannn(maybe a very apt name when you think of its phonetics) instigated the case as a civil matter the judge had to decide whether channel ten defamed him an appropriate defence is that of truth the judge therefore had to decide, whether amongst all the noise, opinions, half truths and lies, on the basis of probability that defence might hold up the judge decided it did
(if I’ve got the simple version wrong happy to take correction from someone who is familiar with defamation law)
whether there is any consequence to that from the perspective of the law other then channel ten not being required to pay damages - well we shall see, but I doubt it
how that plays out in the reynolds case - I’m curious to see
what happens in Toowoomba- well since circumstances are different, who knows, but he’d sure better be careful not to lie
