Tag: Defamation

Liberal Party troll and propagandist Avi Yemini sues Labor Party troll @PRGuy17 for defamation – Kangaroo Court of Australia

Avi Yemini and Craig Kelly

Whatever Avi Yemini does almost always seems to benefit the Liberal Party so the people who are demanding to know who @PRGuy17 is and who funds him/her should also be asking the same questions of Avi Yemini as he is a Liberal Party troll as much, if not more, as @PRGuy17 is a Labor Party troll. Has Avi Yemini received any money from the Liberal Party or its supporters and has Avi Yemini received any money from Clive Palmer for the free advertising he gave Palmer’s UAP during the 2022 election?

Source: Liberal Party troll and propagandist Avi Yemini sues Labor Party troll @PRGuy17 for defamation – Kangaroo Court of Australia

Johnny Depp Wins Defamation Lawsuit Against Amber Heard | HuffPost Entertainment

Was this an individual case justly heard or a case of systemic misogynism and domestic abuse against women in America? “Donald Trump Jr boasts Johnny Depp win is end to the ‘rabid feminist’ Me Too movement” but then We know Trump Jnr is an idiot like his father. However, Depp was found guilty in the UK in 2020 but not in America in 2022. What would have happened here?

A divorce settlement will follow the only winners seem to be the lawyers and individual change the system will remain intact and the publishers insured.


The jurors spent a month and a half hearing arguments from lawyers for actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard in a very public defamation case.

Source: Johnny Depp Wins Defamation Lawsuit Against Amber Heard | HuffPost Entertainment

Trolling: Defamation experts reject Morrison government’s ‘anti-troll’ proposal

Scott Morrison and Michaelia Cash announced the defamation proposal last year.

Couple that with Dutton’s want for defamation cases brought by Government MPs to be funded by us the taxpayers. You then have a very privileged group who with power and access to money can say whatever they want but can shut down any criticism.  The simple act of threatening a court case to shut citizens up becomes available to them. Don’t be fooled that this government is protecting anyone other than themselves while knocking freedom of speech on the head. The efforts are to ban any form of criticism and reduce debate.

 Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Attorney-General Michaelia Cash announced in November that they would amend defamation laws, traditionally a state and territory responsibility, to provide an “easy and quick” way for people to complain to social media platforms and have allegedly defamatory material taken down.

Source: Trolling: Defamation experts reject Morrison government’s ‘anti-troll’ proposal

Peter Dutton’s $35k defamation win disputed by Shane Bazzi

Minister for Defence, Peter Dutton.

Currently, AG Cash is desperately trying to regulate Social Media before the 2022 election as it’s the main source where painful and inconvenient anti-government truths can be found in influential numbers. The LNP has calls it “trolling” whereas it in fact it’s opposition News and Opinion not found in our biased MSM or even the LNP neutered ABC. It seems we have a public that needs a voice and government that wants it shut down at all costs.

But he also noted the tweet “was not published in any mainstream media and was published to a relatively small number of people”. Mr Dutton’s case resulted in a relatively small damages award, falling well short of the maximum of $432,500 that could have been awarded.

Source: Peter Dutton’s $35k defamation win disputed by Shane Bazzi

How to Chill Free Speech: Defamation Down Under – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Not fit for office

In the public domain, individuals who had known a thing or two about the spiritual and physical torment of rape expressed their puzzlement over Dutton’s response. Higgins, who is seeking redress for her own suffering in this matter, found the minister’s legal response to Bazzi “baffling”. “I’ve been offended plenty.” Despite that, it still afforded “people … the right to engage in public debate and assert their opinion.” The whole case was a “shocking indictment on free speech.”

In finding for Dutton in November, Justice White ruled that the tweet had been defamatory, and that Bazzi could not resort to the defence of honest opinion. With classic, skewering casuistry, the judge found that “Bazzi may have used the word ‘apologist’ without an understanding of the meaning he was, in fact conveying.” If this had been the case, “it would follow that he did not hold the opinion actually conveyed by the words.” Let it be known: if you do no not understand the meaning of certain words, you can have no opinions about them.

Despite his eagerness to seek damages for all grounds, Dutton was only successful on one of the four pleaded imputations. Claims for aggravated damages and an injunction targeting Bazzi’s comments, were rejected. The Defence Minister’s appetite for pursuing Bazzi for his full legal bill also troubled Justice White, who had repeatedly urged the parties to reach a settlement. Why had Dutton not sued in a lower court, he asked? The reason, claimed Dutton’s barrister Hamish Clift this month, was because his client was a prominent figure requiring a prominent stage to protect his prominent reputation. “It would not be appropriate for the court,” retorted White, “to exercise their discretion more favourably to Dutton simply because of the important public and national office of which he holds.”



Source: How to Chill Free Speech: Defamation Down Under – » The Australian Independent Media Network

The Liberals Are Planning To Ban Cancel Culture! – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Not just Culture but the systems and foundations that support it. They want to change The ABC Education, History, Voting, Democracy and who will rule Australia and it’s not the people.

Although once public figures were also pretty reluctant to use defamation proceedings on the grounds that they might amplify what would others only be heard by a handful of people. And politicians rarely did, partly because of the same reason, and partly because parliamentary privilege meant that it seemed unfair that they could defame people without legal consequence, so it might seem a bit unfair to the average voter. Now, we have the Minister for War (is that defamatory, whoops!) telling us that there should be a fund for politicians to use taxpayer money to sue people saying nasty things like they’re unfit for office. I presume this means that any successful prosecution would be paid back to the taxpayer, given that we stumped up the money in the first place. Although, when I think about it, that would mean that any. newspaper editor, businessperson or lawyer setting up a blind trust to pay for a politician’s legal costs would get the money if they’re defamation case was successful. Free speech should never be stifled, unless you have a really good lawyer.

Source: The Liberals Are Planning To Ban Cancel Culture! – » The Australian Independent Media Network

More public figures expected to turn off Facebook comments after Australian defamation ruling | Defamation law | The Guardian

Tasmanian premier Peter Gutwein

Earlier this month, Fairfax and News Corp lost a bid in the high court to escape liability for allegedly defamatory comments posted on their Facebook pages in response to articles about Dylan Voller, whose mistreatment in the Northern Territory’s Don Dale youth detention centre led to a royal commission. The five-two judgment went far beyond just finding media companies were responsible for comments made on their Facebook pages, finding that merely facilitating comments amounted to “participation” in the communication of defamatory material, even if the original poster was not aware of the content of later comments.

Source: More public figures expected to turn off Facebook comments after Australian defamation ruling | Defamation law | The Guardian

More than $1 million raised for friendlyjordies legal battle

The overwhelming response – which followed a plea for donations on Shanks-Markovina’s YouTube channel – showed the public was on their side, he said.“We have received more than 24,000 individual donations – that’s more people [than] who first voted John Barilaro into parliament,” he said in a statement.Among his supporters is former prime minister Kevin Rudd.

Source: More than $1 million raised for friendlyjordies legal battle

Geoffrey Rush And The Newspaper Accused Of Defaming Him Are Arguing About Who Is Liable

Actor Geoffrey Rush.

News Corp is trying to blame their source for their lack of verification

The newspaper accused of defaming Geoffrey Rush says the theatre company that confirmed a complaint had been made about Rush’s alleged “inappropriate behaviour” should also have to pay up if the publisher loses the high profile lawsuit.

via Geoffrey Rush And The Newspaper Accused Of Defaming Him Are Arguing About Who Is Liable

Rushing To Judgement: The Daily Telegraph Versus Geoffrey Rush, Explained – New Matilda

News Corporation is struggling to mount a legal defence to its allegations against actor Geoffrey Rush. And then there’s the chilling effect on the #metoo campaign. Hannah Marshall from Marque Lawyers breaks it down. Things are looking grim for the Daily Telegraph in its defence of Geoffrey Rush’s defamation case. The story of the litigation has taken a very distinct turn in Rush’s favour. That story is a courtroom drama and the protagonists are the barristers, lawyers and the judge. Behind the story of the litigation is another story. One that we won’t hear. That’s the story of what actually happened during the production of King Lear. That’s the one with Geoffrey Rush and Eryn Jean Norvill in it. Not the STC, not their co-stars, not the Tele. No-one else really, truly knows what happened. Only them. By commencing this defamation action, Rush seeks vindication; proof that he did not commit the acts of which he was publicly accused. The legal system tries its very best to provide actual vindication and find actual truth. But often it can’t. Cases like the Rush case make this painfully clear. The judge will make his decision based on the pleadings, which document the parties’ cl

Source: Rushing To Judgement: The Daily Telegraph Versus Geoffrey Rush, Explained – New Matilda

The Daily Telegraph dealt court blow in Geoffrey Rush defamation case

Murdoch’s opinionated press is on the road to failure in its defence of Defamation against Geoffrey Rush. A reminder of just how loose with the facts it’s writers in fact are. How many times has Andrew Bolt been found guilty in similar cases or required to make an unpublicized settlement. Yet another case of David and Goliath it seems. (OD)

The Daily Telegraph dealt court blow in Geoffrey Rush defamation case

Australian media joins fight against Rebel Wilson’s record defamation payout

“That aspect of the court’s decision has significant consequences for all media,” Goss added.

The first and primary consequence don’t defame people without verified comment which judges regard as being “loose with the facts”(OD)

via Australian media joins fight against Rebel Wilson’s record defamation payout

Spectator Australia takes a hit with big Grantham floods payout | Media | The Guardian

Rowan Dean

Spectator Australia, the conservative magazine already struggling to survive with paid sales of about 8,000 copies, will be deeply wounded by a $572,674 payment to a Toowoomba family who say they were defamed by the publication. Editor Rowan Dean, who was Mark Latham’s co-host on the doomed Sky News show Outsiders, has maintained his silence about the eye-watering sum and how it will affect the Australian arm of the UK magazine.

Denis Wagner, one of four brothers to take legal action, told Weekly Beast the family just wanted justice after the magazine published an article, “Dam Busters! How Cater and Jones burst Grantham’s wall of lies”, which implied they were to blame for the Grantham flood. “We are pleased with the successful resolution of the claim, which vindicates the stance we have taken in this matter,” Wagner said. “We are now focusing on vindicating our reputations in our cases against Alan Jones and Channel Nine.”

Spectator Australia takes a hit with big Grantham floods payout | Media | The Guardian

Who pays if Hockey loses? Joe Hockey defamation case: Fairfax Media calls for documents regarding Treasurer’s involvement in North Sydney Forum as part of defamation case

Fairfax Media is defending a defamation case brought by Treasurer Joe Hockey, pictured, saying it was reasonable to publish details about the North Sydney Forum, which allegedly offered access to Mr Hockey in exchange for donations.

Fairfax Media has called on a Sydney Liberal Party fundraising forum to provide all documents regarding any involvement by federal Treasurer Joe Hockey in its activities as part of the defamation action brought by Mr Hockey.

The Treasurer is suing Fairfax for defamation in the Federal Court, claiming a series of articles published in The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times last year conveyed a series of defamatory meanings, including that he “accepted bribes paid to influence the decisions he made as Treasurer”.

Among the articles was a front-page story in May last year that carried the headline “Treasurer for sale”, about Mr Hockey’s alleged involvement in a Liberal Party Fundraising group known as the North Sydney Forum.

Fairfax is defending the case, saying it was reasonable to publish details about the North Sydney Forum, which allegedly offered access to Mr Hockey in exchange for donations to the forum of thousands of dollars, as it was information concerning government and political matters

The Federal Court heard on Wednesday that Fairfax has issued the North Sydney Forum with a subpoena effectively requesting any and all documents relating to Mr Hockey’s involvement in its activities, as well as documents about the activities of the forum more generally.

The subpoena includes a request for any documents relating to:

  • Any involvement by Mr Hockey in the establishment of the North Sydney Forum.
  • Any involvement by Mr Hockey in the forum’s fundraising activities between 2009 and May last year.
  • Any policy directive that the identity of members of the forum should be kept secret.
  • The use of funds by the forum, including any involvement by Mr Hockey in these decisions.
  • The process by which the National Australia Bank, the Financial Services Council, Restaurant and Catering Australia, Servcorp, Metcash and Australian Water Holdings allegedly became members of the forum, and
  • The alleged return of North Sydney Forum membership fees to Australian Water Holdings and any involvement by Mr Hockey in this alleged process.

It is possible that the forum will object to at least part of the subpoena, but it is yet to formally do so.

The court also heard on Wednesday that Mr Hockey has issued a subpoena to Pagemasters – the company which undertakes some sub-editing work for Fairfax Media.

It is understood that Mr Hockey is requesting all communications between Fairfax Media and Pagemasters in relation to the allegedly defamatory stories.

Mr Hockey is claiming that, as a result of articles published on May 5 under the headline “Treasurer for sale” he has been “greatly injured, shunned and avoided and his reputation has been and will be brought into disrepute, odium, ridicule and contempt”.

But Fairfax Media denies the articles and the headlines, including “Treasurer for sale”, are capable of defaming Mr Hockey in the way that he claims.

Further, it says the Australian public has a legitimate and significant interest in the implications of senior government ministers using the authority of their position to assist in fund-raising for a political party.

Mr Hockey said Fairfax Media’s “over-sensational, extravagant and unfair presentation” of the articles indicated an “intent to injure” him.

He is claiming aggravated damages, interest and costs.

Fairfax Media says the articles were based upon information obtained responsibly and fairly.

On Wednesday, Federal Court Registrar Michael Wall gave the North Sydney Forum until January 30 to formally object to the subpoena issued by Fairfax and ordered the parties to return to court on February 4.