9 ms·

If, like, me, you were more interested in understanding why these findings were brought into question, there's another article here: https://www.abc.net.au/news

If, like, me, you were more interested in understanding why these findings were brought into question, there's another article here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-10-12/night-parrot-australian-wildlife-conservancy-evidence-in-doubt/10364842 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-10-12/night-parrot-... Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but the night parrot is known to exist in some places in Australia, but this is about a specific location in Southern Australia. The evidence that they are there, are a few photos of a nest, which people think contains plaster eggs, not real ones.

h0l0cube 8y ago
A friend of mine is in the Australian bird watching community, and tells me the man in question is regarded to be both unscrupulous and litigious (hence I won't repeat any claims). His dogged work-ethic has lead to discoveries that might not otherwise be made, but there are some perverse incentives at play.
- Diederich 8y ago
  > hence I won't repeat any claims Unrelated question: so does this imply that the libel laws in Australia are similar to those in UK? Thanks!
  - h0l0cube 8y ago
    Not a lawyer, I can't comment on that. I've just heard that a number of people have been gagged, but that is no more than hearsay.
  - plugger 8y ago
    Defamation laws in Australia are quite severe, much more so when compared to the US.
  - rsynnott 8y ago
    Australian libel laws are incredibly severe; truth is not an absolute defense (as it is in UK law, and in law in pretty much all other democratic countries).
  - shakna 8y ago
    Yes, but more complicated. Australian defamation law inherits the English defamation law, though with some differences introduced across time. I'm not overly familiar with UK law, but some differences I'm aware of: + There is no difference between libel and slander. + If it can be proven that you acted with malice, any and all defences may instantly be ignored. However, as harsh as all this is... We also have a ruling from '06 that means that "truth" is an accurate defence. It used to be "truth" is only a defence if it had public benefit, but that requirement was dropped. If you said only "truth", and without malice aforethought, then you may escape unscathed, but the bar for proving that is very very very high. The laws around it are also very complicated, and difficult to navigate. It is easy to claim someone said something that caused damage to a reputation, and if that damage was to an individual, they can sue you, and they may well win.

h0l0cube 8y ago

A friend of mine is in the Australian bird watching community, and tells me the man in question is regarded to be both unscrupulous and litigious (hence I won't repeat any claims). His dogged work-ethic has lead to discoveries that might not otherwise be made, but there are some perverse incentives at play.

Diederich 8y ago
> hence I won't repeat any claims Unrelated question: so does this imply that the libel laws in Australia are similar to those in UK? Thanks!
- h0l0cube 8y ago
  Not a lawyer, I can't comment on that. I've just heard that a number of people have been gagged, but that is no more than hearsay.
- plugger 8y ago
  Defamation laws in Australia are quite severe, much more so when compared to the US.
- rsynnott 8y ago
  Australian libel laws are incredibly severe; truth is not an absolute defense (as it is in UK law, and in law in pretty much all other democratic countries).
- shakna 8y ago
  Yes, but more complicated. Australian defamation law inherits the English defamation law, though with some differences introduced across time. I'm not overly familiar with UK law, but some differences I'm aware of: + There is no difference between libel and slander. + If it can be proven that you acted with malice, any and all defences may instantly be ignored. However, as harsh as all this is... We also have a ruling from '06 that means that "truth" is an accurate defence. It used to be "truth" is only a defence if it had public benefit, but that requirement was dropped. If you said only "truth", and without malice aforethought, then you may escape unscathed, but the bar for proving that is very very very high. The laws around it are also very complicated, and difficult to navigate. It is easy to claim someone said something that caused damage to a reputation, and if that damage was to an individual, they can sue you, and they may well win.