Peter Dutton's defamation case

[David]

What do people make of this?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/27/peter-dutton-sues-refugee-activist-shane-bazzi-for-defamation-over-apologist-tweet

Putting my instinctive (and I think well-deserved) loathing of the truly odious Dutton to one side, I can't help but feel that it might not be the worst thing if he wins the case. The reason for that is that I do feel social media has created a culture of impunity, where you can say whatever you feel about someone and they have to wear it. In this specific case, I don't feel that Dutton's reference to a case being "he said, she said" makes him a rape apologist, and nor does the other quote cited, although I dare say Dutton should be facing defamation proceedings himself for his disgraceful smearing of refugees. On the other hand, I do think we should be free and able to levy such accusations at people where it's fair and appropriate without having an army of lawyers turning up on our doorstep. So I guess the question is, where exactly should the line be between free speech and defamation, and what are appropriate consequences for the latter?

It's a tricky area: generally, I share the concerns of many that our defamation laws favour plaintiffs to a grotesque extent, and that that has many negative impacts on freedom of journalism (as well as, for instance, the ability of sexual assault survivors to be able to talk about their victimisation, and the identity of their attackers, freely). In those regards, I feel like we could do a lot worse than adopting the considerably more laissez-faire American approach, in which the bar for getting a defamation pay out is quite high. But I have a lot less sympathy for those in some realms in which lying about or grotesquely characterising others seems to be permissible and widely practised, such as gossip magazines and social media, and I think in the latter realm in particular that unaccountability has led to a huge amount of toxic behaviour being accepted and normalised. It would be nice for social media users – be they alt-right trolls or self-righteous progressives – to feel that there are actually real-world consequences for what they post. So it'll be interesting to see which way this case goes, and whether it'll have any effects on that discourse.

[Tannin]

I can't repeat it because he would sue me too, but if you listen to what Dutton actually said in the first place, the best thing for the community would be a successful defence on the basis of the comment being a truthful remark made in the public interest.

Dutton is a bully who always gets his own way.

[David]

^ Yes, that latter observation is how I see things too. Which kind of makes me want him to lose humiliatingly for all reasons except for the principle at hand – and even on that, I'm 50/50 at best.

[5 from the wing on debut]

I haven't read the detailed allegations, but the quotes in the article from the publisher's lawyer seem to indicate that his client is in for a difficult time.

[eddiesmith]

It would be great for more freedom of speech and bad for the bullying tactics used by one side of politics who have pretty much used the rape apologist line for anyone who dares to say anything in even the slightest bit different to the line they're pushing.

[David]

Wait on, you're saying a defamation finding would be good for freedom of speech? How would that work?

[5 from the wing on debut]

Eddie is saying that the publisher was intending to shut down free speech by making false accusatory statements.

[David]

Which is self-evidently absurd, no?

[eddiesmith]

Fact is debate is shut down on anything to do with recent incidents because anyone who dare suggested something different to condemnation of every white male and every member of the Federal Government was called a rape apologist.

If people can no longer shut down debate by condemning opposition with reformatory terms then yes it encourages more widespread freedom of speech.

[David]

But this is all arse-backwards: Dutton is a high-profile government minister who can and does say whatever he likes (and is given a platform to do so at the drop of a hat). Nobody is shutting down his free speech! On the contrary, someone is going to court for criticising him, and potentially being told that what they said is illegal: i.e. their speech is the one being policed here in a meaningful way, and that particular debate is the one that's actually being shut down. Most free speech supporters accept the necessity of defamation laws, but we nonetheless recognise them as a restriction.

I can understand that the risk of being called names might make some reluctant to offer their opinions in public (although it doesn't seem to stop most people), but that's simply not the same thing as being punished for what you say. You can't support free speech without supporting criticism; that's one of its most fundamental aspects. And I can tell you that there are many countries in the world where you can't get away with publicly calling high-ranking government figures "rape apologists", and those places are not exactly bastions of free expression or democracy.

[stui magpie]

There's places in the world you can't even joke at public figures. We don't want to become like this. https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/arrested-for-a-spotify-playlist-insulting-queen-artist-vows-to-fight-new-laws-20210425-p57m5w.html

Here, you can publish criticism of public figures. Opinion is opinion and the truth is a defense. Slandering any public figure using lies is just asking for trouble and I hope this peanut finds it.

[Tannin]

But it was the truth. Certainly a more than reasonable interpretation on the evidence.

[stui magpie]

It wasn't the truth, it was a biased interpretation stated seemingly with intent to cause harm.

A Troll is a Troll.