In Australia - Moira Deeming defamation trial now on

[TheSandgroper]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-17/moira-deeming-john-pesutto-defamation-trial-day-two/104360100

This is from our very TRA ABC. Please note the comment from “Mr Southwick, a Jewish MP re Angie Jones’ tweet”. Well, Angie Jones is as Jewish as they come but they don’t say that.

Also, for, those who don’t know, see Angie on m.youtube.com/@TERFTalkDownUnder, though she hasn’t posted for a while. Some really good interviews.

Ms Deeming is seeking aggravated damages, alleging she was defamed by Mr Pesutto in media releases, a press conference and broadcast interviews.

In a pre-trial hearing, Ms Deeming's lawyers claimed Mr Pesutto's comments carried 67 defamatory imputations — but Mr Pesutto has rejected the claims, saying he has never called Ms Deeming a neo-Nazi, white supremacist or anything similar.

Mr Pesutto is seeking to rely on the legal defences of honest opinion, contextual truth, public interest defence and qualified privilege.

His legal team has earlier argued Ms Deeming "is likely to have caused damage to her own reputation" by making "false assertions" that she had been branded a Nazi.

This hearings are being broadcast by the Federal Court on YouTube, with Justice O'Callaghan warning the public is permitted to observe, but not participate in the hearing or record the live stream.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/moira-deeming-s-defamation-case-against-victorian-liberal-leader-john-pesutto-begins-in-federal-court/ar-AA1qDkZi

I'm sure most on this thread know this, but as it seems a bit of a derail is going on, thought a reminder of the basics might help keep it on track.

Though if anyone knows what "qualified privilege" means would be interested to hear.

Google is your friend.

There is a qualified privilege for statements published in a reasonable manner for which there is a public interest (e.g., the news) or for which there is a private interest of such importance to the public that it is protected by public policy (e.g., a job reference). In essence, the news media can inaccurately report newsworthy events, especially live events and breaking news, as long as it does so without actual malice

https://borrus.com/newsletter/truth-and-privilege-defenses-to-defamation/#:~:text=A%20qualified%20privilege%20is%20a,statements%20made%20in%20legislative%20proceedings.

I.e. his statements made to the Press immediately after the event would be protected by qualified privilege as long as he can show he didn't make them maliciously.

And is it a "derail" to discuss the case? Seems odd.

I don't get it, CassieMaddox, he is not part of the media nor a reporter so how can qualified privilige apply?

It is also not a freedom of speech issue, he not just said, but acted on his opinion. Saying something is one thing, acting because you have the power to hurt the other, that crosses the line.

I think because one of the examples she gave that she says is an "imputation" was an interview he gave in the aftermath of the event on a news channel. I'm in no way an expert tho - I'm speculating. I guess we'll find out when his lawyer makes an opening statement tomorrow

The other place I wondered if it could apply was in the private meeting they had - the one the recording leaked of. Presumably disciplinary hearings etc are covered otherwise it would be impossible to have fact finding meetings l.

They have been an installation at Melbourne political rallies on and off since the 80s. The police are v 'sympathetic', including one who was a father to one of that group.

In case you are referring to the LWS event, she didnt 'knowingly' share platforms. A simple watch of any of the many videos of the event from different angles can clarify that.
I can assure you that that NN lot turn up at every Melbourne rally and that the local plod are infested with them. They were over to one side, unseen by LWS and then deliberately led, 'paraded' in front of LWS by the cops.

This defence is for media outlets, such as the newspaper that printed the interview or any tv channel that reported on what was said, as long as they can demonstrate that what was said was reasonably true.

It does not apply to a politician lying about another politician, even when the first politician is acting as 'spokesperson'. People are not media outlets.

Not wat was reasonable true, but could be assumed was reasonable true.

I think you are misunderstanding me. But I'd rather not get into an argument about it.

The trial is on again today. If you go to YouTube and search for “federal court Australia live stream” you’ll find it. Currently on lunch break so you’ll be able to catch up on the morning’s footage. It’s 1pm, and will start again at 2:15pm.

The livestream isn’t available later for viewing. It’s live or nothing, so once they adjourn at the end of the day the video is gone. It’s against Australian law to record, rebroadcast, repost etc any of the proceedings or even still images of the proceedings.

The judge seems very tired and over the crap that Collins (Pesutto’s KC) is presenting as evidence. Judge had to ask for explanations and definitions of TERF, TRA and SelfID. Yesterday he told Collins to skip WWII and get to the present day/the rally last year. Today he’s skeptical of the weight of tweets responding to Deeming being submitted as evidence against Deeming. Judge has sent Deeming out of the court so it can be discussed with the lawyers.

Sue Crysanthou is representing Deeming.

Documents are here
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/deeming-v-pesutto

I bet the judge is tired. This is basically a twitter spat in court 😂

This one is an interesting summary (pdf)
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/120613/Exhibit-MFI-R1-21-August-2024.pdf

I bet the judge is tired. This is basically a twitter spat in court😂

Ah look, there it is. A woman having her career and reputation damaged by a man who is the leader of a major party, in a major state, in a major country, simply for speaking out for women’s rights is dismissed as a “twitter spat” with a laughing emoji. The minimisation is telling 😉

Adjourned until 10:15am (Melbourne time) tomorrow.

I don't think its at all clear that's what happened. But we'll see what the judge says.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/104365688

I'm not sure I believe her that she didn't know these allegations against KJK

She was expelled from the party room, then suspended, and now sits as an independent, all because of actions taken by Pesutto because she spoke up for women’s rights. This is indisputable, even if the defamation part is disputed. Her career path is now irrevocably different because of how this man has treated her. But you let it slip you minimise this as just a “Twitter spat”. Like I said, it’s telling.

My reading of it is she was expelled from the Party room for not following Liberal policies. And the case is about defamation, not about her expulsion.

To me it comes across as a Twitter spat as it basically boils down to "here are the reasons I thought KJK was associated with Nazis (Pesutto)" and "that was a joke/a lie/ KJK can't control what others say about her (Deeming)"

It's like a thread on here in court and having been involved in plenty of those, yes I feel sorry for the judge. But I guess they get paid the big bucks to sift through mountains of evidence to decide what's relevant and objectively what's reasonable.

To me it comes across as a Twitter spat

So you say. Again. Ongoing minimisation of what has happened to Deeming and how it transpired. It’s clear to me what your views are.

OK. Well you are entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to mine. I'm sure both of us will find the judges ruling interesting.

I'm reading a book at present called 'Hitler's People' - it looks at the rise of nazism through the lens of the biographies of those closest to Hitler and to the subsequent rise of fascism in Germany.

What is already very apparent is that those who adhered to Nazism, as an ideology, gatecrashed everything; that was their modus operandi. They openly used, and even espoused using violence, bullying, intimidation and coldblooded murder in order to assert themselves and assume power.