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.

They also attached themselves to, and made use of, popular causes.

'She should have known about these allegations that we have been making up about KJK, and if she didnt she should have done more research and nothing happened and if it did its her own fault for not listening to the lies we spouted about KJK'.

So done with this fucking lying bunch of fucking arseholes.

Probably but not for the same reasons.

I believe she has been mistreated regardless of any potential defamation, and regardless of any court ruling on any potential defamation. You don’t think she’s been mistreated at all and only seem to be interested in if the judge rules she has been defamed or not.

I think it’s serious. You think it’s funny.

I think it’s revealing how “interesting” you think it might be given you think it’s so trivial.

I'm sure the neo Nazis did gatecrash, rather than being invited.

I think that was predictable though and I don't think KJK does enough to distance herself from them. In fact she does lots of things that makes her attractive to them (e.g. appearing on Carl Benjamin, tweeting and retweeting a lot of "2 tier policing" and Islam questioning content, vocally supporting Donald Trump as "the only hope for the world")

I can see why it would be an issue to the Liberal Party for one of the members to have a close and public friendship with someone who does these things and I don't think its defamatory for them to question whether she's an appropriate member of their party, especially if their voters and supporters are complaining about her.

There is an element of tunnel vision happening here in my opinion, by focusing on the Neo Nazis, rather than seeing the bigger picture (how should an organisation deal with a member going outside their values and when is it defamation to do so).

I think its funny to think of the judge having to read through loads of tweets about "peddos" and TERFs, yes. Twitter is mental.

Finding that mental image amusing doesn't mean I find the whole case amusing. I think its important for freedom of speech actually.

Nice try. You called it “a twitter spat in court😂”. Clear enough.

FFS.

Do women's groups now have to make pre-emptive statements of being not aligned with groups they know nothing about? Just in case.

Not sure about that. In the link above from ABC they're now saying the event was gate-crashed by neo-Nazis. That's a very significant move from the initial reporting when the main stream media was misreporting this and saying the two groups were together.

This would only be relevant if she were suing the media. There is no qualified privilege for politicians statements to the press. Is this a reading comprehension difficulty or are you just making stuff up?

This is a significant change for the ABC. I look forward to one day having the ABC just report the facts again and to not take the moral stances it does at the moment. The constant repetition of women's rights campaigners as being anti-trans is all about the ABC making a moral stance.

The only 'privileged' speech that Pesutto would have would be for anything he said in Parliament. I believe that would not be prosecutable.

That sounds very familiar, doesn't it?

I now see how this will work. At the very start of every women's group meeting of any kind, each woman needs to stand and take a vow of disavowment of any and all possible alignments to any possible current, past and future groups.

I think that this is the only way forward.

Dentons learnt from the best.

And by best, I mean worst. Just in case someone screenshots it and states that I am supporting the Nazis.

It is like the land acknowledgements.

Instead of just turning up to a meeting room and having a meeting, like the old days.

Clearly.

Some men will do anything to prevent women from a voice which appears a point lost on some posters.

Placemarking

Not sure about that. In the link above from ABC they're now saying the event was gate-crashed by neo-Nazis. That's a very significant move from the initial reporting when the main stream media was misreporting this and saying the two groups were together.

That's encouraging.

Yes. And then I expanded what I meant by that. Choose to believe me or not but most of what you are saying is pure conjecture and not what I said or intended.

Actually it proves my point about "free speech". How much should the onus be on the speaker to prevent others misunderstanding? And if others misunderstand and then defame someone on the basis of their misunderstanding, should the original speaker by held accountable? That seems like a risk to free speech to me, especially in the days of social media.

I'm not a lawyer. I read it as someone who is paid by the media to give an opinion in the aftermath of a public interest event has qualified privilege I.e. they can say something incorrect before the facts are known, as long as its an honest understanding and not malicious.

If you also aren't a lawyer, then maybe quit with the insults. If you are, then maybe you could explain what it means without making personal attacks about "comprehension"

Again, it would have a chilling effect on the news if people could be sued for giving an opinion on public interest events based on their best interpretation of the facts at the time.

This is why I'm interested in the trial really. I can see bigger implications for politicians and media if Deeming wins.

There are lots of threads about free speech. There have been threads about free speech in Australia. I don’t remember you showing any interest in the case of Billboard Chris, Twitter, X and the Australian eSafety Commissioner. There have been lots of famous defamation cases in Australia in the last 12 months too. Do you show an interest in those.

To paraphrase Mrs Merton, what attracted you to a thread about free speech/defamation involving KJK?

OK. Clearly I'm not welcome on this thread, I actually am not in the mood for a pile on. I actually follow a few defamation cases and not just GC ones.
I'm not Australian and have limited knowledge (as I said upthread). I follow this one because of KJKs involvement.

Enjoy your thread. Echo Chambers are much more comfortable

I follow this one because of KJKs involvement.

There we go. You’re not interested in free speech. Or defamation. Or Australian law. Or even the impact a man’s actions has had on a woman for daring to speak about her rights. You think that part is trivial, you only care about the potential associations of KJK. The damage to women doesn’t matter as much as that. Like I said, revealing.

Even if this case forces political advisors to do in-depth research for the dossiers that they give their party spokespeople instead of relying on falsehoods that someone has publicised based on nothing but guilt by association, that would be a start.

Pesutto acted like a prize galah in this instance. He needed to hire better advisors who actually question everything and chase everything back to the original sources and see things in full context and present that. Rather than what he accepted in that dossier.