Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Australia Your Rights Online

Australia Defamation Case Signals a Crackdown on Ordinary Citizens, Critics Say (nytimes.com) 147

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Australia's defense minister on Wednesday won a defamation case over a six-word tweet that called him a "rape apologist." From a report: Critics and experts said the court case exemplified the conservative government's heavy-handed approach toward regulating damaging commentary on social media -- what Prime Minister Scott Morrison called "a coward's palace." The case also represented a troubling shift as politicians bring more lawsuits against ordinary citizens, they said. The dispute began when Shane Bazzi, an advocate for refugees who has 13,000 Twitter followers, wrote a Twitter post in February about Peter Dutton, then the country's home affairs minister and now the defense minister.

"Peter Dutton is a rape apologist," the tweet said, and linked to an article about comments Mr. Dutton had made that women seeking asylum in Australia used rape claims as an excuse to enter the country. The post was published on the same day that Mr. Dutton also used the phrase "she said, he said" in reference to explosive accusations by Brittany Higgins, a former government staff member, who said she had been sexually assaulted in Australia's Parliament House. Mr. Dutton began defamation proceedings soon after, saying that the post had "deeply offended" him and had wrongly suggested he condoned and excused rape. Mr Bazzi's blue Twitter check mark, Mr. Dutton also argued, implied recognition by the social media giant and had led the minister to believe that the post was not just the "rant of somebody randomly on Twitter."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia Defamation Case Signals a Crackdown on Ordinary Citizens, Critics Say More

Australia Defamation Case Signals a Crackdown on Ordinary Citizens, Critics Say

Comments Filter:

  • right wing nutjobs rule Australia (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymouse Cowtard ( 6211666 ) on Thursday November 25, 2021 @04:20PM (#62021485) Homepage
    The Australian right wing government is also pushing forward with a Bill that will make discrimination legal if your Magic Sky Man approves. Basically, I can't discriminate against you on the basis of your religion but you can discriminate against me for being an atheist. It's called the Religious Discrimination Bill and it will forever remove the notion that Australia is a secular society.
    • Anyone who wants to read about this bill:

      https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/publications/religious-discrimination-bills-2021

      • Just curious, as a non-Australian, are the right-wing nutjobs aware that they're going be passing a law to protect Islam and the rights of Muslims?

        (I"m all for that, since they need more protection than other religions in countries like Australia, but I suspect it's not what the people pushing for it intended).

    • Re:right wing nutjobs rule Australia (Score:5, Interesting)

      by vlad30 ( 44644 ) on Thursday November 25, 2021 @05:50PM (#62021687)
      While your comment is interesting the bill as it was intended was to stop the person applying and getting a job in for example a religious school (Catholic, Anglican, Muslim etc) and then complaining that the schools teachings conflict with there own values and then causing the school pain through the current employee rights and eventually financial pain through a usually quiet financial settlement under the current laws. i.e. the school would be able to put the schools beliefs in contract if you don't wish to comply then you breach the contract and can be dismissed or you keep your beliefs to yourself during work. Better yet don't apply for a job where they conflict with your values.

      Unfortunately we have dumb people who put themselves in positions where they complain when its their own fault https://www.smh.com.au/nationa... [smh.com.au] residents buy next to amusement park and complain about the noise

      • You really ought to give punctuation a try.

        • You really ought to give punctuation a try.

          Why? It's not like what he wrote was particularly long. Is your attention span short? Do you freak out when you see a run on sentence?

          I have kept each sentence here intentionally short.

      • You perhaps should actually try reading it. It is NOT about that at all. It is intended to allow religions to actively partake in discrimination such as firing and hiring based on beliefs. Really the bill should be called a discrimination bill as it isn't about anti discrimination, rather it actively protects those that want to discriminate (as long as it is on religious grounds). The truly insulting thing is them comparing to sex, disability or age discrimation, all of those bills do the OPPOSITE of what t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vbdasc ( 146051 )

        the bill as it was intended was to stop the person applying and getting a job in for example a religious school (Catholic, Anglican, Muslim etc) and then complaining that the schools teachings conflict with there own values and then causing the school pain

        Does it stop a religious person (Catholic, Anglican, Muslim etc) from applying and getting a job in for example an atheist school and then complaining that the schools teachings (for example, evolution) conflict with there own values and then causing the school pain?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

      So proclaim yourself a Pastafarian and demand everyone has to respect you wearing a colander as a hat, and talking like a pirate.

    • Ignore it. It's all pointless noise that if anyone is actually stupid to pass it will be knocked down instantly as a breach of article 116 of the Australian Constitution.

      The government can't legislate away secular society without winning a supermajority in a referendum.

  • huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 25, 2021 @04:35PM (#62021501)
    Firstly it had nothing to do with the government cracking down. The defamation case was a private matter and as much as I hate the prick Dutton, it seems a pretty clear case of defamation.

    • Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mikaere ( 748605 ) on Thursday November 25, 2021 @05:03PM (#62021577)
      Agreed. I read the article that apparently contained rape apologist comments. It didn't, instead he stated that the women were lying about being raped and using it as a way to gain entry into Australia.
      Dutton is a vile piece of shit, but in this case I think the judge made the correct decision relevant to the defamation. $35k seems like way too much, though.
      • Most everyone knows Australia's laws are harsh - up there with Singapore. 35K, and I think, plus costs, which should be hefty. Yes, a proportion of seekers are coached to lie and exaggerate, and shop by country - perfectly understandable, so to err on the side of winning, just like child custody battles. Not forgetting Vegans also call meat eaters terrible things too. I think all immigration ministers are caught between a rock and a hard place in deterring boat smugglers/ and failed countries. Because drown

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        the guy clearly uses the powers of his office to avoid helping rape victims, despite it being his job.

        So he's rape-neutral then.

        "If you are neutral in situations of [rape], you have chosen the side of the [rapist]." --Desmond Tutu

        • Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Thursday November 25, 2021 @10:01PM (#62022161)

          Desmond Tutu's comment is just another in a long, long line of false dilemmas from idealogues. I don't care how influential he is, it's horseshit to split the world into two camps on any subject.

      • You should read the actual legal decision. Setting the current charged issue aside, it may correct some misconceptions you have about defamation and libel, at least in Australia. Whether or not his reputation was harmed wasn't in dispute and was barely even a factor.

        The dispute was whether the tweet conveyed defamatory meaning beyond anything actually said in the article. To your analogy about prisoners, it would be more like if someone said they only stole the car keys, and someone tweeted they were flat e

        • I hate replying to myself, but I don't like the way I tried to tie it to the car thief analogy.

          It's more like if I said "The car thief is a violent monster."

          and they said "literally no one got hurt, I just stole something when no people were around, you can't call me violent with a link to an article about a non-violent crime"

          and then my defense was "well I just meant they were you know, generally bad, people should know what I meant"

    • In civilized countries stating the truth is a defense against defamation suits. And Peter Dutton was and is a rape apologist, as you should be able to tell directly from his own statements.

      • Truth is not an automatic defence in commonwealth countries. If you maliciously spread the truth to cause disproprotionate reputational damage, you are liable for libel (e.g. hiring a PR company to nationally spread the news that some kid in your class you don't like picks his nose).

        In this case, as a high-profile politician, spreading the (let's assume) truth that Dutton believes rape is acceptable moral behaviour would not be disproportionate. You seem to think his statements suggest that's his belief, I

        • Yeah, as I said civilized countries doesn't do that. The UK (and apparently Australia), has weirdo libel laws meant to empower the already powerful and make it easier to crack down on people "smearing" them by telling the truth about what they actually do and are.

          I don't think. It is his own statements. He is a rape apologist, somebody apologizing for rape, and defending sexual assault. It isn't this one thing, he does it regularly, it is a pattern of behavior, which is why using the term for him is an appr

          • You seem to disagree with everyone in the courtroom, including the defendant. The Tweet said;

            Dutton is a rape apologist

            The proceedings revolved around whether the Tweet meant

            The applicant condones rape

            The defendant claimed
            1. The Tweet does not imply Dutton condones rape
            2. It would be defamatory if the Tweet implied that
            3. Dutton's original statements did not imply he condones rape

            Ultimately the court found the Tweet did have that implication. Perhaps you could argue the defendant is only admitting the t

    • It isn't the State cracking down but I don't think "Government" is necessarily an ill-fitting term here, as there is a pattern people in Government bringing suits against private citizens.

      There was Andrew Laming [canberratimes.com.au]

      There was Christian Porter [theguardian.com] (backed by shadowy money).

      There was this case.

      So it does seem very much a "Government" tactic, in the sense that it is seems to be being pursued by members of the governing party.

      • And Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens senator, anti-government) sued and rightfully won a defamation case also.

        Say stupid things, loose stupid money, whatever side of politics the defamed is on.

        https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Trongy ( 64652 )

        There is a huge power imbalance. It's not a new situation - it's part of the legal system we inherited from England via colonisation.

        Former prime minister Bob Hawke was famous for the number of defamation actions he brought when he was in politics.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by labnet ( 457441 )

      I've met Dutton twice and found him intelligent and reasonable, unlike Garth Evans whom I also talked to in private and found very wanting.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Macfox ( 50100 )

        Gareth?

        Possibly because Gareth Evans is 26 years his senior and been out of politics longer than Dutton's been elected. Evans was well establish in politics before Dutton was born. They are of different generations and by all measures Gareth Evans career and accomplishments and reputation as a statesman, dwarfs Dutton.

        Dutton's is easily characterised as cold, cruel and heartless, making regular despairing comments about asylum seekers and is why is widely despised outside his QLD electorate. Of late he's be

  • Blue checkmarks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NoMoreDupes ( 8410441 ) on Thursday November 25, 2021 @04:36PM (#62021509)

    Mr Bazzi's blue Twitter check mark, Mr. Dutton also argued, implied recognition by the social media giant and had led the minister to believe that the post was not just the "rant of somebody randomly on Twitter."

    I always considered that the "blue checkmarks" really meant @jack shit, given the many assholes on Twitter with those marks; now it seems like they might actually be more for a liability than anything.

  • A good start (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Thursday November 25, 2021 @04:40PM (#62021519) Homepage
    Way too much is tolerated because it's done online. People threaten others with death or rape. They dox other people. They make unfounded accusations. Then they get away with it. It's got to stop. I support your freedom to say your opinion, even opinions I detest, but don't threaten people, and if you want to defame someone, you'd better be able to provide evidence of that in court, because that's against the law.

    • Re:A good start (Score:5, Informative)

      by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite ( 721679 ) on Thursday November 25, 2021 @05:10PM (#62021587)

      Way too much is tolerated because it's done online. People threaten others with death or rape. They dox other people. They make unfounded accusations. Then they get away with it. It's got to stop. I support your freedom to say your opinion, even opinions I detest, but don't threaten people, and if you want to defame someone, you'd better be able to provide evidence of that in court, because that's against the law.

      Afaik here was no such threats involved here. Skimming thru the judgement it seems like the defendant lost the case because there was some confusion what he actually meant by "rape apologist" and he denied that he believed the plaintiff excuses rape, so the opinion defense went out the window and the judge was annoyed that he didn't testify. https://www.judgments.fedcourt... [fedcourt.gov.au]

      Conclusion

      239 In summary, for the reasons set out above, I have found that the Tweet did convey the imputation that Mr Dutton excuses rape; that this was defamatory of Mr Dutton; that Mr Bazzi has not established the statutory defence of honest opinion or the common law defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest; that judgment should be entered for Mr Dutton in the sum of $35,000; and that Mr Dutton’s claim for injunctions should be refused.

      • Whilst I'm slightly left of centre, I've been noticing that the radical left uses the term "X Apologist" for just about any flavour of the month where they want to demonise someone for not taking a radical stance. If it were the right doing it, we'd call it fascism - but there doesn't seem to be such a convenient term for the left... authoritarian extremism perhaps?

        Would be keen to hear others thoughts on how we might start to label this behaviour.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RobinH ( 124750 )
        I just mean in general that if people were held accountable for stuff they say online in the same way they were if they said it at a news conference in front of TV cameras, we'd see the civility of online discourse improve really fast.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

          Yeah, it'll turn into a circlejerk for the people in charge. Great for civility, until the people in charge become uncivil themselves but there's nobody daring to speak out against them.

  • Thanks (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 25, 2021 @04:51PM (#62021551)
    Thanks Slashdot, for linking to a paywalled article. Again. Asshole.
  • It's called their right to sue. Average Australians do not have any US style rights and are shocked when they see rich people do..

  • what crackdown? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Thursday November 25, 2021 @05:19PM (#62021597)
    how does this signal a crack down? This wasn't the government, this was one ,admittedly complete C**T, minister with a private court case, nothing to do with the government and on top of that it does seem it was a rather blatant case of defamation. Though the thin skinned ahole should have just ignored it as while this one was defamation, many other insults aimed at him are bloody accurate.
    • Perhaps it's beginning to look like a crackdown because, rather than just being "one ... private court case" it looks like part of a pattern where MPs in the Governing Party bring defamation suits against private citizens, see also defamation cases brought by

      While it may not be leveraging the executive powers of the state, there still seems to be a power imbalance (not least because Parliamentary Privil

    • Read the article; ScoMo echoed the same “I’ll have to start suing people for defamation” that Dutton said before filing a suit. It does have a chilling effect to it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by martinX ( 672498 )

        A chilling effect on what? Defamation and slander?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by labnet ( 457441 )

        What chilling about defending your character against malicious claims.
        If I called you six time kiddie fiddler to my social media group of millions, why wouldn't you have the right to defend your character.

      • ummm good? defamation is actually a massive problem. You should not make public claims about someone that may impact their life or career without proof of said claims.
  • Social media itself is the problem. However, that must not be disrupted, as it would disempower the Internet mobs.

  • "On the internet" = IRL (Score:3)

    by peppepz ( 1311345 ) on Thursday November 25, 2021 @08:14PM (#62022003)
    Ordinary citizens have no right to defamation in real life; I don't understand why they would suppose to have it on Twitter. People think that threats and defamation are ok on the Internet because somehow the Internet is a lesser thing compared to "real life". In fact, on the Internet one can typically reach a much wider audience, so he should be more careful with the words that he chooses to use.

  • I think that an 80 year old man who pinches a waitress' rear end shouldn't be given a prison sentence.

    To the stocks with me! I'm a rape apologist.

    The circumstances might not be comparable, but the idea holds.

    • but the idea holds.

      Yeah, the idea holds. You excuse sexual harassment. Only your opinion matters, not the opinion of either people involved, just yours, the guy neither doing the harassment or the one being harassed.

      Question. Are you a piece of shit in real life, or only when you hide behind a pseudonym on the internet?

  • Yet another utterly shit article on Slashdot.

    Someone said something on Twitter.
    Someone got offended and went to court.
    1st Someone found to have libelled
    2nd Someone collects costs

    Hardly world shattering is it ?

    If it was Albanese, the Labour Leader, involved I can guarantee you 100% this article would not be here despite him having the same right to sue.

    For the Yanks : Australia does not have free speech laws. You can sue for Libel and Defamation.

  • Also stop linking to fucking paywall articles

  • Anti-defamation case signals prosecution of a defamation.

    There, FTFY.
    Some noisemaker crossed the line on Twitter and has to pay the consequences.

    No news here.

  • You could always not call someone a "rape apologist"

    There are many ways of disagreeing with a person without calling them someone that excuses and therefore likely supports rape. I'm pretty certain that he does not support rape.

    Maybe write an opinion piece, maybe noting that you believe he was being very insensitive. Going for the nuclear option sometimes nukes the nuker.

    And as always, Twitter is one of the most ridiculous yet effective ways for a person to destroy themselves. As well, it is an

  • a national surveillance network.
    whistleblowing illegal.
    revealing government crimes illegal.
    use of the diebold voting machines that were proven rigged.

    the main difference between Australia and the US is that there's actually a political party not being run by the Elites that can get voted in IF they exceed the margin of rigging.

  • https://www.straitstimes.com/a... [straitstimes.com]

    Apparently this is not uncommon in Australia, and multiple people have been either forced to settle or sued.

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close