3 ms·

This isn't the government though. Australia has strict laws where if you tell lies about someone they can sue you for damages. This is an individual politicia

This isn't the government though. Australia has strict laws where if you tell lies about someone they can sue you for damages. This is an individual politician, using the same avenues that any other member of the public can also use, to sue someone for defaming him.

cube00 5y ago
Which would fine if they weren't also proposing that the public pay the legal bill for MPs to launch such action against the public. If they're defending, sure, they need to be covered but if they want to go after the public they can pay for it themselves. https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/peter-dutton-suggests-publicfunded-legal-fund-for-mps-to-sue-for-defamation/news-story/69ed36299b449a58b0f1abeba886612e https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/peter-dutton-sugge... A YouTuber lost a truth defense because things a politician said in parliament are inadmissible in court so it's not reasonable to claim they are "using the same avenues that any other member of the public can also use". That politician could given up parliamentary privilege and made it a level playing field but he did not. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-05/john-barilaro-settles-friendlyjordies-defamation-action/100596638 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-05/john-barilaro-settles...
stephen_g 5y ago
It doesn't necessarily have to be lies, although truth is a possible defense - but there are issues around parliamentary privilege when politicians sue where it might not be possible for the defendant to mount a truth defence even if it's on the public record that they said something! Our defamation laws are really screwed up - basically, you need to prove that you didn't defame somebody instead of the burden of proof being on the plaintiff to prove it, and you need to have massively deep pockets to sue for defamation (you will likely part with hundreds of thousands of dollars, unless you can get costs awarded - not really anything most 'any other member of the public' can actually do), and you need the same kind of cash to successfully fight somebody suing for defamation against you. It's basically a war of who can pay for the best lawyers. The internet comedian Friendlyjordies managed to settle very favourabliy because he managed to crowdfund literally a million dollars to fight when John Barilaio sued him. Otherwise that wouldn't have been possible for him to even think about fighting it.
879r9p6292 5y ago
The courts are a part of the government, the judicial branch to be precise. It also wasn't a lie, Peter Dutton is a rape apologist. The Australia government punishing someone for saying something truthful about one of their ministers doesn't make it any less true.

cube00 5y ago

Which would fine if they weren't also proposing that the public pay the legal bill for MPs to launch such action against the public. If they're defending, sure, they need to be covered but if they want to go after the public they can pay for it themselves. https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/peter-dutton-suggests-publicfunded-legal-fund-for-mps-to-sue-for-defamation/news-story/69ed36299b449a58b0f1abeba886612e https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/peter-dutton-sugge... A YouTuber lost a truth defense because things a politician said in parliament are inadmissible in court so it's not reasonable to claim they are "using the same avenues that any other member of the public can also use". That politician could given up parliamentary privilege and made it a level playing field but he did not. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-05/john-barilaro-settles-friendlyjordies-defamation-action/100596638 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-05/john-barilaro-settles...

stephen_g 5y ago

It doesn't necessarily have to be lies, although truth is a possible defense - but there are issues around parliamentary privilege when politicians sue where it might not be possible for the defendant to mount a truth defence even if it's on the public record that they said something! Our defamation laws are really screwed up - basically, you need to prove that you didn't defame somebody instead of the burden of proof being on the plaintiff to prove it, and you need to have massively deep pockets to sue for defamation (you will likely part with hundreds of thousands of dollars, unless you can get costs awarded - not really anything most 'any other member of the public' can actually do), and you need the same kind of cash to successfully fight somebody suing for defamation against you. It's basically a war of who can pay for the best lawyers. The internet comedian Friendlyjordies managed to settle very favourabliy because he managed to crowdfund literally a million dollars to fight when John Barilaio sued him. Otherwise that wouldn't have been possible for him to even think about fighting it.

879r9p6292 5y ago

The courts are a part of the government, the judicial branch to be precise. It also wasn't a lie, Peter Dutton is a rape apologist. The Australia government punishing someone for saying something truthful about one of their ministers doesn't make it any less true.