Though other complex issues of the authenticity of the international jurisdiction were involved, the open fact is that the court recognized damage caused to the plaintiff by the defendant. However in this case, there are reasonable grounds to dispute any deliberate and malicious cause to the damage of property be it personal or otherwise belonging to Jeremy by the publisher. The fact that there was pre-discloser by the plaintiff about his intended actions to one of the shop employees shows that the actions which the plaintiff took later were a true confirmation to his deliberate actions.
Other legal implications
Other legal implications however are likely to arise from this publication. The fact that the online publication is not fully and well structured in law not only in Australia is the major point of concern. In many states and countries, the law gives scanty procedures of making judgments on the online publications (Legard & Roberts, 2002). The facts that the defamatory statements have to be downloaded before consideration are very critical points in the making of judgments. This mean that flaws are possible to be recognized in the ruling citing the fact that material not downloaded but just read online are not subjected to the judgments as was the case of Jones defamation of Gutnick in the case.
Similarly, the authenticity of the international jurisdiction of the law would be considered. The inclusion of Ms McIntosh sentiments concerning her son past behaviors in New Zealand, the role of the international agencies which are out of the Australian jurisdiction comes into limelight when the ruling is made. This is confirmed by the Rindos versus Hardwick case where Mr. Hardwick’s email posted o the Usenet in the year 1994 was deemed to have caused defamation to the American visiting scholar to Western Australia, Dr. David Rindos. This case was not fully ruled out following the fact that not any case of similar kind had been recognized, but all in all, it formed the landmark of the internet jurisdiction of the internet defamation laws.