Defamation Nation

So, what is defamation?
Defamation is to say something bad about a person that does them harm. Also called slander or libel.

Times they are a changing.
In 2006, uniform defamation law was introduced that made initial changes to the legislation. These changes included:
1. Companies with more than ten employees cannot sue for defamation unless they are a not for profit organisation. They also cannot be related to any other corporation.
2. Representative of the deceased cannot sue for defamation.

This provided more freedom of speech for not only major broadcasting agencies but for community members and groups. Large companies were limited in their right to sue for defamation and more defences such as the 'Truth Defense' were put in play.

Self Defence 101, the ways to beat defamation.

1. Honest Opinion or Fair Comment, which is used as a defence to defamation if it is proved that the defamatory material was honest opinion rather than statement of fact.

2. Justification or the Truth Defense
Justification is a complete defence to defamation if it is proved that the defamation was true.

3. Qualified Privilege
There are three ways qualified privilege can help defend against defamation:
(a) The recipient has an interest or apparent interest in having information on some subject, and
(b) The matter is published to the recipient in the course of giving to the recipient information on that subject, and
(c) The conduct of the defendant in publishing that matter is reasonable in the circumstances.


What is contempt of court?
This refers to an individual showing disrespect during a trial to the court, its process and its invested powers. Contempt of court may result from a failure to obey the law and order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings due to poor behaviour, or publication of material which may be likely to jeopardise a fair trial. Someone found guilty of contempt of court may be fined or jailed.

What is racial vilification?
This is the Australian legislation which refers to public acts which encourage or incite others to hate certain people because of their race, nationality, colour or country of origin. These acts are illegal, according to the Racial Vilification Act 1996.

The good, the bad and the sedition laws.

Sedition laws oppose those who intentionally urge others, through the internet or other ways, to harm other Australians. In particular, sedition laws concern urging:
• Overthrow of the Australian government or state governments by violence
• Violent interference with elections
• Violence against other groups in the community
• Assisting any enemy engaged with the Australian Defence Force.

Sedition laws have been criticised by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance as well as various media proprietors such as News Limited and Fairfax as being detrimental to freedom of speech. Despite putting restrictions on what journalists and the general public can say about our government policies, if given the ability to the instigation of violence could cause more harm than good.
It is true to say that not all opposing views on government policies will cause a violent uproar in society. However, the sedition laws are put in place for a reason, especially in such a multicultural country like Australia. The opposing views of different cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds have the ability to cause a stir as seen with such things like the Cronulla Riots. To put this on a larger scale would possibly start a potential coup de taut within Australia.
However, free speech is something that we as Australian’s are entitled too, so we have to ask whether these laws are just in place in the off chance, so that no one can instigate an attack on political policies. Freedom of speech has been an ideal long before sedition laws were in place, but is it safe to have one without the other? Or has it become a tool to keep the public numbed to the fact that they cannot fully express their opinion on the government, despite living in a democratic country.

Leo Schofield and the Lobster.
The Blue Angel defamation case was a famous 1989 Australian court case that saw Sydney food writer Leo Schofield and newspaper Sydney Morning Herald lose $100,000 plus interest for defaming a restaurant.
On May 21, 1984, Schofield and companion, David Spode, ate at the Blue Angel Restaurant in Sydney. They ate lobster, garlic prawns, and lemon sole. Schofield left a tip and his business card as he left. The review appeared in The Herald on 29 May 1984.
The review was highly unfavourable. It began:
I have never really understood about live fish in tanks in restaurants. If they are seen as a way to guarantee freshness, then surely we ought also to have live pigs in pens in the middle of restaurants, ready for slaughter to ensure the freshest possible loin of pork and the odd steer waiting patiently to be zapped by the electric hammer before transformation.
Schofield wrote there was a 45-minute wait for grilled lobster. And referred to it as “an albino walrus.”
The restaurant owner, Marcello Marcobello, sued Schofield and the publisher, John Fairfax and Sons Ltd, for defamation. The case was heard before Justice Enderby and a jury of four in 1989.
Marcobello claimed Schofield imputed he was a cruel and inhumane restaurateur because the restaurant killed live lobsters by boiling them alive and cooked lobsters for 45 minutes, which was contrary to standard cooking; he charged prices that didn’t reflect good value; he served charred lobster and severely overcooked garlic prawns and lemon sole.
Schofield and Fairfax claimed fair comment and truth as their defences. Witnesses claimed to have eaten overcooked meals at the Blue Angel, and Frank Marcobello, said he had reservations about chef Antonnella Cortese. There had also been an error in the review: ‘broiled’ was typeset as ‘boiled’. Marcello Marcobello pointed out that no correction of errors had been printed, his witnesses claimed the food in question was very good and not overcooked and Ms Cortese offered detailed explanations of her cooking methods. He also cast doubt on his father’s testimony, and claimed his ongoing feud with his son was the reason he testified for the defence.
Schofield and Fairfax lost and had to pay $78,000 to Marcobello and $22,000 to the restaurant. More than $50,000 interest was added.
The key reason the defence of fair comment failed was that they did not satisfy some of the basic requirements of the court. Most importantly, they were unable to prove the truth of the truth of the facts on which the opinion had been based. They had eaten the evidence.