Hey, I just want to send a letter. It’s nothing suss at all, but before I send it, can you tell me if it could possibly every be traced back to me? Nothing suss though…
Bizarre that he’s gone down the defamation route, he’s coming off second best so far. Might end up in a worse place after this.
He would be seeking a big payout for loss of income if defamation proved - but the proceedings themselves have established facts possibly more damaging to his reputation than the rumour mill.
Christian Porter precedent …,
So what’s happening with his war crimes case tho, is that ongoing?
Weird al should crucify this ■■■■.
I vaguely recall the investigation into any possible actual criminal charges for war crimes is still ‘ongoing’ and you just know it’s going to continue to be as long as Dutton, Porter etc run the show because no way is the current govt ever going to bring charges against him. Not sure if there’s any parallel military justice process, or even if that’s still applicable now he’s no longer in the service.
I don’t think so actually.
He might be guilty as sin but the newspapers have to prove it (and the onus is on them to do so). I actually don’t think they will be able to to the required standard. It’s hard enough to prove a murder occurred in normal circumstances, let alone when it occurred in war (a theatre where people are killed all the time).
Yes he will cop a massive amount of bad publicity during the trial. But it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he wins it. If that happens, then two things will occur. Firstly - his C7 and Newscorp buddies will work hard for him on image rehabilitation. And secondly - the damages payout will be absolutely astronomical.
Truth defence? Is it that the media had a basis to believed it to be true, not that it was true?
Oh for the US system - that movie of Milos Forman - The People versus Larry Flynt
They are running a truth defence. That doesn’t require them to prove the truth of every detail of the matter which has been published, but they do need to prove the truth of the meaning conveyed by the publication. Proving that part of the meaning is true is not enough - they have to provide that the whole meaning is substantially true.
And in this case (which is totally fascinating by the way), there is no middle ground. Fairfax are presenting a version of events that conclude that he’s a murderer and a war criminal. He is presenting a version of events that concludes that none of what Fairfax allege is true, and that it’s all made up by people out to get him. There is no “somewhere in the middle”. There are two diametrically opposed versions of the events being presented and the judge will have to pick one or the other.
True, if he wins he gets to spin that as totally innocent.
So, is it the case that, if the media lodge a truth defence, the burden of proof shifts to them?
So shall we call this the Porter effect or the Roberts-Smith effect? A corollary to the Streisand Effect.
There are some complexities but basically yes. This is the key way which our defamation laws differ from the US - over there, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the material was false.
Australia has some of the most oppressive defamation laws in the western world (probably the most actually).
Really ? And yet News Corp gets away virtually scot-free ?
Or, like Craig McLachlan - wins the case against one woman’s allegation, but it encourages others to come forward later.
I think the reforms will assist in this but from what I’ve seen of the draft legislation, it’s far from perfect.
It will always be weighted toward the people/business with more money trying to protect their reputation.
Maybe just maybe, he is innocent.
Soldiers are trained to kill people, and allegedly he killed our enemies, so I am happy with that.
You want him to be innocent.
The fact that there are quite a number of live AFP inquiries into him probably does not bode well on that front, but you are correct that he is innocent until proven guilty.
Maybe he is but this trial isn’t about that. PP is saying that if he wins this, he gets to spin the story as being innocent of the crimes he is accused of. Which is obviously true.