Yes, that's my understanding too - but it's not clear whether that's what they're saying to the press or what they're saying in court. It's probably the only defence available from the given information.
I wanted to be sure that they aren't trying on a Reynolds v Times qualified privilege defence - i.e. that it was responsible journalism. If they were it would probably have been reported on, since that's still exciting new law. (If such a thing isn't an oxymoron.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
baggyeyes
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-20 03:24 pm (UTC)I wanted to be sure that they aren't trying on a Reynolds v Times qualified privilege defence - i.e. that it was responsible journalism. If they were it would probably have been reported on, since that's still exciting new law. (If such a thing isn't an oxymoron.)