Google loses defamation case in Australia, for failing to take action against defamatory Youtube channel videos.

[Stahlmann]

14 hours ago, Ydfhlx said:

Yes it does... If there are consequences you're not free to do it. That's literally the definition.

If you call someone dumbass and get punched in the face you can't say you got hurt because you made use of your right of free speech. At some point they will say you went out of your way just to insult someone, which is not the point of free speech.

 

As always, it depends and that's why courts exist: To decide what to do when something is not clearly defined.

[mr moose]

Just now, Dirtyshado said:

  I am not sure if your trying to be funny here, or you don't know.

 

That politician was Barilaro, after he filed his lawsuit against Mr Shanks. The producer started following the politician around and started turning up at all his scheduled events, asking "Why are you suing my boss?". The police chief gave it to the Fixated Persons Unit (which is also part of the counter-terrorist police unit) and they arrested the Youtuber's producer and charged him with stalking.

You do realize the police were requested to act after Mr shanks refused to remove the videos and after harassing Barilaro. 

 

Due process was followed, the defendant was given very reasonable opportunities to fix his actions long before police involvment. 

 

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, Spotty said:

Google's defence for not removing the videos, which they later dropped as their defence, was that Youtube claimed the videos "served a public interest" despite being against their own policies [and the court (later?) finding them defamatory in Barilaro V Shanks cases].

Thanks for the context.  Still not sure how I feel about this case though.  I read through a bit of the Barilaro V Shanks, and found it quite disturbing actually (the last document you posted in regards to his case).

 

In the B v S case, it seems as though Shanks really wasn't allowed putting up a proper defense due to parliamentary privilege.  i.e. If (and that's a big if) Shanks is right, in that it happened during a parliamentary setting and he's not allowed to question or use information from that as a defense then effectively Shanks would never be able to prove whether what was said about Barilaro is true (a catch 32 in the literal sense).

 

Which sort of makes it a bit more disturbing, in that you could potentially make a true statement but it counts as defamation because you can't prove the statement is true in court.

 

8 hours ago, Spotty said:

TLDR; The court concluded that Google/Youtube knew the videos were defamatory and against their own policies regarding hate speech and harassment but decided not to remove them to protect their own commercial interests.

I could have missed stuff, I didn't go through it all...but I still find some of the stuff a bit disturbing from what I've seen.  The main arguement was that YouTube violated the hate speech and policies but at the same time some of the stuff being attributed seems like it could be on the lighter side or specifically up to interpretation (it's not YouTube to decide what is or isn't defamatory).  e.g.  It seems they concluded that "greasy" is a racist term...which I mean could be...but given it can also be utilized as a "greasy politician", and given the other claims it could be construed at that.

 

To me, the biggest thing is after the settlement what did YouTube do...and specifically was it mentioned in the settlement...but still I don't think it's YouTube's responsibility.  If one of the arguments that was used that it was settled, and YouTube didn't remove the video...well that's up to what was written in the settlement.  It's the fault of the lawyers not writing into the settlement that the defendant has to remove the videos.  It really shouldn't be up to YouTube to decide really.

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

Why am I not surprised this happened in Australia? 

 

Anyway, dumb ruling if you ask me. If other countries also started making sites responsible for what users publish then the Internet as we know it would die. The responsibility for the content should be on the user who made it, not the platform who happened to host it alongside millions of other pieces of legal content.

 

I mean, I don't think Linus should be personally responsible and sued for over 700,000 dollars if it turns out someone on this forum has said something that happens to be untrue about let's say Trump. That would be nuts.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If other countries also started making sites responsible for what users publish then the Internet as we know it would die.

That's not even how it played out here either, that is still the case in Australia and it's not changing in that regard due to this. You're basically saying nobody has to follow or honor court orders or care about laws in countries they operate in because... I dunno "we have rights to ignore them?".

 

Google has been found liable and culpable due to inaction after due course notification, all that makes Google responsible for is removing content that has been deemed a violation of a particular law which means it should be removed.

 

Are you saying Google has the rights and due reasoning to ignore Copyright law?

 

The responsibility was the Author's, that was upheld in court. Google got themselves in to trouble by not upholding that ruling. If you are worried about Google having to remove content from their platforms due to actual court rulings then that is quite weird.

 

Person: "Here is a legal ruling that this is defamatory, please remove it"

Youtube: "Nah, don't want to"

Person: "Ok your choice, you'll have to accept the consequences of your choices"

[insert this situation]

The Internet: "Oh no the internet is dying!"

 

As dumb as this situation may or may not be I don't see how it fundamentally could change much at all.

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

The responsibility was the Author's, that was upheld in court. Google got themselves in to trouble by not upholding that ruling. If you are worried about Google having to remove content from their platforms due to actual court rulings then that is quite weird.

 

Person: "Here is a legal ruling that this is defamatory, please remove it"

Youtube: "Nah, don't want to"

Person: "Ok your choice, you'll have to accept the consequences of your choices"

[insert this situation]

The Internet: "Oh no the internet is dying!"

 

As dumb as this situation may or may not be I don't see how it fundamentally could change much at all.

I could be missing something, as it was a very long docket...but I don't think it quite happened in that order though.

 

I think the rough order from what I gather was this (could be wrong, it was too long and I only quickly went through it):

Shanks posts videos

Barilaro tries getting it taken down (argument that it breaks YouTube's policy and was defamation)

Lawsuits happen

Shanks and Barilaro come to a settlement (editing out information and making an retraction)

*Appears the videos were edited to match the settlement*

Shanks posts a secondary video required by the settlement but is critical of Barilaro and his lawyers (remember, Shanks wasn't allowed presenting evidence due to parliamentary protection).  From what I can quickly gather, it seems like this might be the video might be part of what the defamation is about.

Barilaro suit uses this and the edited video (which he still isn't happy with).

 

Honestly, it doesn't actually sound like it was a court order to remove the video...more like it was part of the settlement agreement...but at that stage as well, it shouldn't be up to Google to figure out if Shanks' edited version meets the settlement requirements.

 

[Spotty]

The issue here is that Youtube has community guidelines for what type of content is allowed in videos published on the Youtube platform. These videos were in violation of those guidelines. The violations of those community guidelines were reported to Youtube who failed to act appropriately and did not follow their own procedures.

 

This is about Youtube selectively enforcing their own guidelines based on whatever is most profitable for them. Youtube chose not to enforce their own guidelines because it was a medium-large size channel that is profitable for them in order to protect Youtube's own commercial interests.

 

When responding to the lawsuit Googles' defence in their initial response was that they believed the videos served a public interest, however when the matter went to court they dropped this defence. In court Google provided no defence for why the videos were not removed. Google was unable to defend why they failed to act appropriately or follow their own community policies. The court concluded in favour of Barilaro and awarded him damages.

 

People complaining that publishers shouldn't be held liable for content they publish are completely missing the point of this case. Youtube has rules in place regarding what can and cannot be published on its website. Youtube does not say "You can upload whatever you want to Youtube we accept no responsibility for what we publish". 
Youtube was made aware of the violations - they knew the videos were against their own policies - but Youtube made the decision to allow it on the platform knowing that it was in violation of their own policies. If Youtube is selectively choosing when to enforce its own policies that makes them responsible for that content.

 

 

Quote

CONCLUSION

402 Google made a considered decision to keep the bruz and Secret Dictatorship videos available on YouTube from 22 December 2020, knowing of their content and Mr Barilaro’s complaints. Google had no defence to Mr Barilaro’s claim that each of the matters complained of conveyed the defamatory, very serious and false imputations on which he relied. It dragged the litigation out by pleading defences that had no prospect of succeeding, causing Mr Barilaro added distress, damage to his reputation, and delay to his vindication. [...]

Quote

403 Google sought to put itself forward to the public as having policies governing the use of YouTube that it would use to protect individuals, including public figures such as senior politicians, from being subjected to racist attacks, harassment, hate speech and cyber bullying. However, despite multiple breaches of those policies that were evident in each of the matters complained of and the other videos in Mr Shanks’ campaign described above, Google chose to continue publishing that material. [...]

Quote

404 Google’s publication of the matters complained of drove Mr Barilaro prematurely from his chosen service in public life and traumatised him significantly. Google cannot escape its liability for the substantial damage that Mr Shanks’ campaign caused: Webb 41 CLR at 364–365. He needed YouTube to disseminate his poison. Google was willing to join Mr Shanks in doing so to earn revenue as part of its business model. It did so without regard to acting as a responsible or reasonable publisher, which actually intended its policies to be applied to Mr Shanks’ campaign, would have acted.

The Federal Court of Australia concluded that;

• Google made a considered decision to keep the videos, knowing of their defamatory and abusive content.
• Google provided no defence for the claims made against them.
• Google intentionally dragged out legal proceedings which they knew they had no defence for, to delay the process.
• Google has policies in place to prevent these types of things from being published to the platform, but despite multiple breaches of those policies Google made the decision to continue publishing because it was in their commercial interests to earn revenue from the videos.
• If Google had acted appropriately as a publisher and enforced its own policies it would have prevented the distress caused to the applicant.

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Honestly, it doesn't actually sound like it was a court order to remove the video

Just to clarify I didn't mean a court order was issued to YouTube/Google to remove the videos however there was legal evidence that the videos were defamation, that along with YouTube's own publicly stated policies should have been more than enough for them to action such a request. Policies are worthless if not actually enforced.

 

Anyway like you mention I suspect it was the follow-up video that reignited the issue.

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

it shouldn't be up to Google to figure out if Shanks' edited version meets the settlement requirements.

Actually it does but only to YouTube's own stated standards, it's also an entirely separate and almost independent issue. Does the video breach YouTube's policies, yes/no, if yes remove. The outcome of this does not rely on the settlement, you'd be well within your right to make a settlement and still go to YouTube and ask for it to be removed outright using the settlement itself as evidence the videos were and could still be in breach of YouTube's policies. Of course that would be acting in bad faith of your settlement agreement but it wouldn't actually be a breach of it since a settlement has to do with legal and court proceedings and unless as part of the agreement was to not ask YouTube to remove the videos then there is no possible counter to that.

[Dirtyshado]

3 hours ago, Spotty said:

This is about Youtube selectively enforcing their own guidelines based on whatever is most profitable for them. Youtube chose not to enforce their own guidelines because it was a medium-large size channel that is profitable for them in order to protect Youtube's own commercial interests.

 

When responding to the lawsuit Googles' defence in their initial response was that they believed the videos served a public interest, however when the matter went to court they dropped this defence. In court Google provided no defence for why the videos were not removed. Google was unable to defend why they failed to act appropriately or follow their own community policies. The court concluded in favour of Barilaro and awarded him damages.

This happens a lot to US tech companies, they seem to get to the front door of the Federal Court of Australia and realise their held opinion on Australia Law (or their position as a US company) is completely wrong cause they have been looking at Australian law through US common legalese that doesn't apply here.

 

Hi Spotty, Whenever I have post Australian legal news like this on the forum, I know you like to look deeper at the legal proceedings themselves.

I skimmed them after you found them. So a question for you?

 

Given FCA-2002-650 refers to other social media posts by individual that targetted Mr Barilaro, including from Shanks and members of the general public. (99, 130, 180, 184, 209)

Do you think Mr Barilaro will take his victory against Google as the final win? or try to hold Twitter or Facebook accountable ?

I couldn't find any record of Mr Barilaro making direct complaints against Facebook or Twitter in the press, as the Judge didn't make any conclusions against other social media platforms either (407).

[Spotty]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

The outcome of this does not rely on the settlement, you'd be well within your right to make a settlement and still go to YouTube and ask for it to be removed outright using the settlement itself as evidence the videos were and could still be in breach of YouTube's policies. Of course that would be acting in bad faith of your settlement agreement but it wouldn't actually be a breach of it since a settlement has to do with legal and court proceedings and unless as part of the agreement was to not ask YouTube to remove the videos then there is no possible counter to that.

On the point about forcing Youtube to remove the videos even after the prior case settlement with Shanks, the court in the matter of Barilaro v Google did consider whether they should issue an order to prevent the continued publication of the earlier videos that were part of the Barilaro V Shanks case and/or to prevent any further such videos from being published.

The court concluded that, while Barilaro requested it during the trial, Barilaro did not request such an order in his original Barilaro V Google case filing, and that such an order was not currently necessary as several parts of the videos which were defamatory were already removed as part of the prior Barilaro V Shanks case settlement. The court has also recommended Shanks & Google both be reviewed by the Principal Registrar of the Court for contempt of court, and that such an order could be considered in that case if brought about by the Principal Registrar.

 

Quote

Should there be injunctive relief?

400 Mr Barilaro argued that I should also enjoin Google from publishing the same or similar defamatory matter that Mr Shanks created.

401 In my opinion, such an injunction is not appropriate. First, Mr Barilaro did not seek such an order in his pleaded case, secondly, the imputations of which he complains are no longer online as a result of Mr Shanks’ editing of the bruz and Secret Dictatorship videos and, thirdly, if the Principal Registrar brings proceedings for contempt, the propriety of Google’s publication of the rest of Mr Shanks’ obsessional campaign against Mr Barilaro is likely to be considered and the Court will be able to make any appropriate orders in a properly constituted proceeding.

 

That judgement seems reasonable to me considering that the videos have already been edited as part of a separate case. It wouldn't surprise me though if Youtube actually made the decision to remove them themselves if, now that this case has concluded, Youtube reviews the videos again and determines the videos still violate their community policies. Maybe the edits that were made as part of the separate settlement were enough that the videos now fall in line with Youtube's policies.

 

 

1 minute ago, Dirtyshado said:

Hi Spotty, Whenever I have post Australian legal news like this on the forum, I know you like to look deeper at the legal proceedings themselves.

I skimmed them after you found them. So a question for you?

 

Given FCA-2002-650 refers to other social media posts by individual that targetted Mr Barilaro, including from Shanks and members of the general public. (99, 130, 180, 184, 209)

Do you think Mr Barilaro will take his victory against Google as the final win? or try to hold Twitter or Facebook accountable ?

I couldn't find any record of Mr Barilaro making direct complaints against Facebook or Twitter in the press, as the Judge didn't make any conclusions against other social media platforms either (407).

No idea.
I personally doubt Barilaro will continue any further legal action against Shanks, Google, or other social media companies himself, provided of course that Shanks does not continue to defame or harass him. Looking at those points you mentioned it seems those other social media posts made by others were to highlight the harassment and abuse that Barilaro received as a result of the defamatory remarks made by Shanks' in his Youtube videos. Like in this case against Google; Barilaro would need to prove that the other social media companies (Twitter, Facbook) failed to act appropriately when those comments were reported to them and that by failing to do so caused him personal damage. It doesn't mention any attempts Barilaro made to those other social media companies to report/remove that content or what actions those social media companies took, as it wouldn't be relevant to this particular case against Google.

 

If Barilaro did submit complaints regarding that content to Twitter/Facebook and Twitter/Facebook acted appropriately & in accordance to their guidelines then there wouldn't really be any reason that he could pursue them over it. In this case against Google it wasn't that the content was published to the platform, but that Google failed to act responsibly [by failing to remove it] and that by failing to act responsibly it resulted in personal damage to Barilaro. I don't think anybody expects these giant social media companies to completely prevent any content of this nature from ever making its way on to the platform, but there is an expectation that they will act appropriately in response to it - which in this case Google failed to do.

 

I'd say he'd likely just take this as a win and move on, but that is without knowing the extent of any issues with the other social media companies that might not have been mentioned in this proceeding.

[Dirtyshado]

2 hours ago, Spotty said:

No idea.

Same, no idea.  If there is no more action on this... catch ya next time Facebook turns up in Australia court (they have 3 cases pending)

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, Spotty said:

People complaining that publishers shouldn't be held liable for content they publish are completely missing the point of this case. Youtube has rules in place regarding what can and cannot be published on its website. Youtube does not say "You can upload whatever you want to Youtube we accept no responsibility for what we publish". 
Youtube was made aware of the violations - they knew the videos were against their own policies - but Youtube made the decision to allow it on the platform knowing that it was in violation of their own policies. If Youtube is selectively choosing when to enforce its own policies that makes them responsible for that content.

Well I mean it's the courts interpretation of YouTube's policies.  It comes back to my point that it's a dangerous precedent because YouTube will now have to stay on the side of caution in regards to anything that is being reported as such.  As a result you are going to get a whole lot more videos that could be targeted as a result...I mean a lot of even news pieces from actual news stations could be construed as against YouTube's policies.

 

With that said, a breach of policy I don't think always should result in automatic liability as a publisher.  e.g. If I start saying that Spotty is actually only 12 years old, and that he's defaming me...should his posts be all eliminated?  Then if it turns out Spotty really was 12 years old, then going after LTT forum for the defamation.  The way it's written as well, it seems like the "do no evil" can be used against Google as well.

 

The part that I have trouble with is that this could have massive ripple effects.  Just like how you have content-ID on things that are clearly fair use (and no way to really properly dispute it)...it all stems from cases similar to this except with copyright.

 

Admittedly I haven't seen the original video, but apart from it being blatantly in violation of the policy it really could be a judgement call.  From the way the ruling reads, it's as though the judge has concluded that what was said in the video was false (but at the same time in the B vs S it was noted that Shanks couldn't question because Barilaro had parliamentary privilege).  It seems as though the judge assumes that the refusal to remove the video was because of commercial profit (which could be said against anytime YouTube doesn't remove a video that has been reported).

 

The defamation is the main point in the ruling as well, which really doesn't sit well with me.  If claims of falsehood are being pursued but evidence isn't allowed to be presented it really is a catch 32.  It means politicians who get accused of things of which evidence is protected can effectively sue anyone who tries using it against them knowing full well that evidence that proves them wrong is not attainable.

 

Honestly, this seems akin to the Depp vs NGN where he lost (because despite NGN having a requirement to prove the facts, the judge didn't allow for calling into question the statements made by Heard).  The Depp v Heard trial showed that she purgered herself on the NGN trial

 

 

 

[IPD]

On 6/6/2022 at 9:45 AM, ConfiXs said:

this puts my opinion in an awkward position, cause I cant decide who I hate more, politicians or big business, but imo everyone should have the right to free speech, but that does not mean they have the right to no consequences, at the same time holding google accountable is like holding gun manufacturers accountable every time someone gets shot or sues a car company when someone gets killed speeding, its stupid and makes 0 sense.

I have no issues with holding Alphabet accountable.  They have consistently played favorites with what is or isn't allowed on YT, including the banning of things like discussions on drugs like HCQ for fighting disease, discussing sworn testimony about ballot nefariousness during the 2020 election cycle, etc.

 

F**K alphabet.  They deserve 100x this amount of legal damages.  Twist the screws until they stop trying to be media gods.

[Dirtyshado]

17 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well I mean it's the courts interpretation of YouTube's policies.  It comes back to my point that it's a dangerous precedent because YouTube will now have to stay on the side of caution in regards to anything that is being reported as such.  As a result you are going to get a whole lot more videos that could be targeted as a result...I mean a lot of even news pieces from actual news stations could be construed as against YouTube's policies.

A policy is written to align a company to its legal obligations and its practices, and to inform its clients and users of both the company and users obligations and rights.

The policy must comply with the the law.  A company can't write a get out of jail free card, if the law says they are in the wrong.  

 

Youtube had a policy that was compliant with Australian law (which is surprising for a US company)... And even more surprising the Youtube policy (that was in plain English, no interpretation required) had a clear definition of what is considered defamation and harassment, and Australian law had the near identical definition because its the same definition in most western countries including USA, Canada, UK, EU.  So when the videos in question clearly fit both the policy and legal desciption, you have to ask "How did Youtube fail?" and that is what the court asked, and decided based on that.

 

"Lot more videos"... doubt it, unless viewers start reporting more videos as its still a report function. I think Youtube will keep seeing the same statisical average of videos reported.

What we may see is that Youtube will put in better moderation procedures to stop offensive videos slipping through, to clearly define to their moderators what is an offending videos.  Unless your news station spends 10 minutes calling your State Govenor every word for the male reproductive organ without stopping to take a breath I think they will be fine.

[mr moose]

22 hours ago, Spotty said:

No idea.
I personally doubt Barilaro will continue any further legal action against Shanks, Google, or other social media companies himself, provided of course that Shanks does not continue to defame or harass him. Looking at those points you mentioned it seems those other social media posts made by others were to highlight the harassment and abuse that Barilaro received as a result of the defamatory remarks made by Shanks' in his Youtube videos. Like in this case against Google; Barilaro would need to prove that the other social media companies (Twitter, Facbook) failed to act appropriately when those comments were reported to them and that by failing to do so caused him personal damage. It doesn't mention any attempts Barilaro made to those other social media companies to report/remove that content or what actions those social media companies took, as it wouldn't be relevant to this particular case against Google.

 

 

Just to add to this point,  In Australian defamation law it is important to show damage has occurred due to the defaming actions.  Without evidence of damages defamation cases can lose a lot of substance.   The claims and abuse people were posting on other social media was evidence that shanks actions did actually cause damage.  

 

In my opinion its not likely that he was listing other media as a precursor to further legal action but simply as evidence to under pin this case.

 

 

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, Dirtyshado said:

A policy is written to align a company to its legal obligations and its practices, and to inform its clients and users of both the company and users obligations and rights.

The policy must comply with the the law.  A company can't write a get out of jail free card, if the law says they are in the wrong.  

I'm not saying they can write a get out of jail free card.  I'm merely saying that some of the policies are clearly not a black and white analysis (which kind of implies by the ruling how it should be or at least to the point that they are liable for something they considered "opinion").  There are people I know that would easily get offended by the Book of Mormon musical, does that mean it should be classified as hate?  I mean strictly speaking it can be viewed as a violation of YouTube's policy, yet clearly isn't illegal (as it's survived this long without lawsuits or threats of legal action).  It also gets back to the fact that some of what was claimed to be defamatory was *potentially, and that's a big potentially* still true.

 

It complicates things further that he is a public figure, *excluding dictatorships* , public figures are less protected by harassment claims.  That is in the sense that there is a higher bar that is set in order to distinguish harassment vs opinion.

 

6 hours ago, Dirtyshado said:

"Lot more videos"... doubt it, unless viewers start reporting more videos as its still a report function. I think Youtube will keep seeing the same statisical average of videos reported.

What we may see is that Youtube will put in better moderation procedures to stop offensive videos slipping through, to clearly define to their moderators what is an offending videos.  Unless your news station spends 10 minutes calling your State Govenor every word for the male reproductive organ without stopping to take a breath I think they will be fine.

Just like how the copyright lawsuits lead to YouTube doing a better job of spotting copyright/fairuse and the removal...oh wait, it had the opposite effect.  YouTube very much is shoot first ask questions later when it comes to copyright claims.  So it wouldn't even matter if they didn't see any change in the number of videos being reported, the fact is the amount of videos they pull would have to increase.

 

YouTube will be forced to rely on the side of caution.  They cannot realistically view each video and determine what is and isn't harassment/defamation; even then you cannot realistically rely on a human to properly be able to spot this.  It's a thing for the courts to decide, not YouTube.  It's literally like shooting the messenger, YouTube is the messenger.  Unless if it's blatant and easily to spot, it should not make YouTube held liable.

 

A good example about this is this case itself and the term "greasy".

1) Let me ask you this, do you consider calling someone the term "greasy" racist? 

2) What if they are from a certain decent?

3) What if they are a politician? [There is a phrase, greasy politician]

4) What if it's a politician that you are accusing of lying and getting away with it...but he also happens to be a race which "greasy" could be considered racist?

 

Number 4 is where we are at with this case, and the court ruled that the word greasy was used in a racist manor...but it's a complicated thing really, context not provided in the video itself could actually make the use racist or not

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I'm not saying they can write a get out of jail free card.  I'm merely saying that some of the policies are clearly not a black and white analysis (which kind of implies by the ruling how it should be or at least to the point that they are liable for something they considered "opinion").  There are people I know that would easily get offended by the Book of Mormon musical, does that mean it should be classified as hate?  I mean strictly speaking it can be viewed as a violation of YouTube's policy, yet clearly isn't illegal (as it's survived this long without lawsuits or threats of legal action).  It also gets back to the fact that some of what was claimed to be defamatory was *potentially, and that's a big potentially* still true.

I think the issue is we are now starting to blur the lines between defamation and offensive.  One has a very legal consequence while the other is part of the 99% grey area we will debate until we are dead.    Also There is no room for "potentially true" in a defamation case, If you cannot prove your claims are true then you are defaming a person by making them.     Even calling a politician a liar is highly likely to be very true, but unless you have actual proof that can't be argued then calling them that is technically defamation.   

 

I kind of wish I had seen the original videos to know the context, however given the courts in Australia don't usually side with politicians I'm going to say it was probably a fairly obvious case of defamation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

probably a fairly obvious case of defamation. 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

If you cannot prove your claims are true then you are defaming a person by making them

The crux of the argument though is that evidence wasn't allowed being presented due to parliamentary privilege.  So by default then any negative statement made regarding to events that happened could be successfully tried as defamation (assuming you can prove damages by a statement).  That sets a dangerous precedent, it is why I talk about "potentially true" because it could be true.  Akin to saying person x is the father of the baby but the courts disallowing a paternity test and concluding the person isn't the father.

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

I kind of wish I had seen the original videos to know the context,

I agree with this statement; context would be so important.  Since it would become really clear whether or not it was blatant or something that could be construed as within the policy.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The crux of the argument though is that evidence wasn't allowed being presented due to parliamentary privilege.  So by default then any negative statement made regarding to events that happened could be successfully tried as defamation (assuming you can prove damages by a statement).  That sets a dangerous precedent, it is why I talk about "potentially true" because it could be true.  Akin to saying person x is the father of the baby but the courts disallowing a paternity test and concluding the person isn't the father.

The precedent has already been set, nothing has changed as this was always the case.    There are things no one is allowed to say and politicians are only protected by parliamentary privilege when they are in session.    So the evidence that was inadmissible was not evidence that would have likely changed this case as it could have only been said by a politician in sitting (which will be recorded in hansard for everyone to read if you want to go looking for it.  

 

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_5_-_Parliamentary_privilege

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I agree with this statement; context would be so important.  Since it would become really clear whether or not it was blatant or something that could be construed as within the policy.

Well, I have seen plenty of videos I would consider blatant defamation, however I have also seen many many posts from people who strongly think otherwise.