-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@barbarian said in Aussie Politics:
How big was the Qld opposition when Campbell Newman won? Seem to remember it was less than 10 members.
But of course we know how that ended, should be a cautionary tale for McGowan. Bit different when it's your third term though.
The whole Porter thing arrived at a pretty bad time for the Libs, in conjunctionw with McGown playing the Sovereign State Covid card for the last year. Perfect man to lead the biggest state against everyone "Over East"
Agree the one thing that Western Australians have in common no matter what side of the political fence is the west v east ideology
-
Back to the Feds...
... Attorney General Christian Porter, who has been accused of rape, and is therefore guilty thereof in the minds of many, is suing the ABC and it's reporter who ran the story.
Essentially saying, I'm going to court and I'm happy to be judged on balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt.
Big call IMO.
Meanwhile the 'All men are rapists' lynch mob are marching because men.
-
@booboo said in Aussie Politics:
Essentially saying, I'm going to court and I'm happy to be judged on balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt.
Also allows everyone from both political parties to say "well I can't comment on matters before the court" to sidestep any questions.
-
@booboo said in Aussie Politics:
Back to the Feds...
... Attorney General Christian Porter, who has been accused of rape, and is therefore guilty thereof in the minds of many, is suing the ABC and it's reporter who ran the story.
Essentially saying, I'm going to court and I'm happy to be judged on balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt.
Big call IMO.
Meanwhile the 'All men are rapists' lynch mob are marching because men.
Isn't he actually saying, "if you want to report stories of me being accused of something, when there is no open case with the police, then you'll need to prove the truth of those accusations in order to report them?
I think it's a really sensible move (assuming he is innocent!)
-
@voodoo said in Aussie Politics:
@booboo said in Aussie Politics:
Back to the Feds...
... Attorney General Christian Porter, who has been accused of rape, and is therefore guilty thereof in the minds of many, is suing the ABC and it's reporter who ran the story.
Essentially saying, I'm going to court and I'm happy to be judged on balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt.
Big call IMO.
Meanwhile the 'All men are rapists' lynch mob are marching because men.
Isn't he actually saying, "if you want to report stories of me being accused of something, when there is no open case with the police, then you'll need to prove the truth of those accusations in order to report them?
I think it's a really sensible move (assuming he is innocent!)
That last bit.
-
@voodoo said in Aussie Politics:
@booboo said in Aussie Politics:
Back to the Feds...
... Attorney General Christian Porter, who has been accused of rape, and is therefore guilty thereof in the minds of many, is suing the ABC and it's reporter who ran the story.
Essentially saying, I'm going to court and I'm happy to be judged on balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt.
Big call IMO.
Meanwhile the 'All men are rapists' lynch mob are marching because men.
Isn't he actually saying, "if you want to report stories of me being accused of something, when there is no open case with the police, then you'll need to prove the truth of those accusations in order to report them?
I think it's a really sensible move (assuming he is innocent!)
It's a clear flip of the truth defence which the ABC would be expected to run if sues for defamation. It appears that his representation has a clear strategy
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@voodoo said in Aussie Politics:
@booboo said in Aussie Politics:
Back to the Feds...
... Attorney General Christian Porter, who has been accused of rape, and is therefore guilty thereof in the minds of many, is suing the ABC and it's reporter who ran the story.
Essentially saying, I'm going to court and I'm happy to be judged on balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt.
Big call IMO.
Meanwhile the 'All men are rapists' lynch mob are marching because men.
Isn't he actually saying, "if you want to report stories of me being accused of something, when there is no open case with the police, then you'll need to prove the truth of those accusations in order to report them?
I think it's a really sensible move (assuming he is innocent!)
It's a clear flip of the truth defence which the ABC would be expected to run if sues for defamation. It appears that his representation has a clear strategy
Surely the ABC is going to be forced to offer settlement? There is no way they can prove the accusations?
Will be interesting to see if Porter accepts that offer.
-
@voodoo said in Aussie Politics:
@booboo said in Aussie Politics:
Back to the Feds...
... Attorney General Christian Porter, who has been accused of rape, and is therefore guilty thereof in the minds of many, is suing the ABC and it's reporter who ran the story.
Essentially saying, I'm going to court and I'm happy to be judged on balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt.
Big call IMO.
Meanwhile the 'All men are rapists' lynch mob are marching because men.
Isn't he actually saying, "if you want to report stories of me being accused of something, when there is no open case with the police, then you'll need to prove the truth of those accusations in order to report them?
The whys and wherefores of the case NOT being open are probably the larger issue. Documents from AFP not being made available in full to NSW Police. Documents being sent to ministers that apparently weren't read - despite the fact they were accusing the AG of sexual assault.
And the discussion around the highest legal office in the land being run by someone like Porter who has had a few runs in the court of public opinion lately, particularly around his relationships and history.
I thought this writeup from David Crowe at SMH was interesting from the language of politics perspective. It really highlights the Scott Morrison say-nothing-in-a-thousand-words strategy.
-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
What did the ABC actually report? Did they actually accuse him of a crime?
And that's what I don't get - the ABC is reporting the news. How can they be sued for that?
That the news is relating to a dead woman's accusation of rape 30 years ago is neither here nor there. It happened, it is a potential issue for the government, and it is presented in a set of unusual legal circumstances where the victim can no longer speak for themselves, effectively closing the case in many ways.
Defenders of free speech should be utterly appalled at Porter's actions, strategic tho they may be.
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
What did the ABC actually report? Did they actually accuse him of a crime?
And that's what I don't get - the ABC is reporting the news. How can they be sued for that?
That the news is relating to a dead woman's accusation of rape 30 years ago is neither here nor there. It happened, it is a potential issue for the government, and it is presented in a set of unusual legal circumstances where the victim can no longer speak for themselves, effectively closing the case in many ways.
Defenders of free speech should be utterly appalled at Porter's actions, strategic tho they may be.
As it has been explained to me, you can't simply report someone who is the subject of a mere accusation unless that someone has been charged - if you do report it, you can be be found guilty of defamation, unless you can prove it was truth.
-
@voodoo
Wow, I did not know that. That is an astonishingly restrictive law. When you think about the stuff published in the Herald Sun I'm surprised that they're not breaking that law every day. Maybe they're just good enough with the weasel words to get around it (or they're more careful talkingabout the people who have enough money to hire a defamation lawyer).As NTA said, the free speech brigade should be outraged by both this law, and Porter's actions. The idea that it's illegal for a news organisation to report allegations of a serious crime against a senior public figure is scary.
-
@voodoo said in Aussie Politics:
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
What did the ABC actually report? Did they actually accuse him of a crime?
And that's what I don't get - the ABC is reporting the news. How can they be sued for that?
That the news is relating to a dead woman's accusation of rape 30 years ago is neither here nor there. It happened, it is a potential issue for the government, and it is presented in a set of unusual legal circumstances where the victim can no longer speak for themselves, effectively closing the case in many ways.
Defenders of free speech should be utterly appalled at Porter's actions, strategic tho they may be.
As it has been explained to me, you can't simply report someone who is the subject of a mere accusation unless that someone has been charged - if you do report it, you can be be found guilty of defamation, unless you can prove it was truth.
That makes sense. Depends how you report it I guess.
"The alleged victim's correspondence indicates that a senior government minister sexually assaulted her in 1988, however no investigation has been opened" is significantly different from "Porter allegedly sexually assaulted the victim in 1988"
To your argument: the key part of the defamation suit is that it is based on an article in which Porter is not even named.
These are fine lines.
-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
@voodoo
Wow, I did not know that. That is an astonishingly restrictive law. When you think about the stuff published in the Herald Sun I'm surprised that they're not breaking that law every day. Maybe they're just good enough with the weasel words to get around it (or they're more careful talkingabout the people who have enough money to hire a defamation lawyer).As NTA said, the free speech brigade should be outraged by both this law, and Porter's actions. The idea that it's illegal for a news organisation to report allegations of a serious crime against a senior public figure is scary.
guess the flipside is that it's scarily easy to destroy someone's reputation by publishing an accusation like this - permanent damage to your career, your family life. That's a general statement, I'm not commenting on the validity of this case
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@voodoo said in Aussie Politics:
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
What did the ABC actually report? Did they actually accuse him of a crime?
And that's what I don't get - the ABC is reporting the news. How can they be sued for that?
That the news is relating to a dead woman's accusation of rape 30 years ago is neither here nor there. It happened, it is a potential issue for the government, and it is presented in a set of unusual legal circumstances where the victim can no longer speak for themselves, effectively closing the case in many ways.
Defenders of free speech should be utterly appalled at Porter's actions, strategic tho they may be.
As it has been explained to me, you can't simply report someone who is the subject of a mere accusation unless that someone has been charged - if you do report it, you can be be found guilty of defamation, unless you can prove it was truth.
That makes sense. Depends how you report it I guess.
"The alleged victim's correspondence indicates that a senior government minister sexually assaulted her in 1988, however no investigation has been opened" is significantly different from "Porter allegedly sexually assaulted the victim in 1988"
To your argument: the key part of the defamation suit is that it is based on an article in which Porter is not even named.
These are fine lines.
Yeah, really fine. I think Porter's statement made lots of reference to how easily he could be identified as the person in question, but I have no idea how a judge forms a view on that!
-
These freeze peach warriors really get under my skin. The sheer bloody hypocrisy of it all - free speech only applies to people who say things they agree with - and the just the plain dumb inability to understand that freedom of speech isn't the same thing as having no consequences or accountability. Generalising a bit, but these are pretty common themes.
-
@voodoo said in Aussie Politics:
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
@voodoo
Wow, I did not know that. That is an astonishingly restrictive law. When you think about the stuff published in the Herald Sun I'm surprised that they're not breaking that law every day. Maybe they're just good enough with the weasel words to get around it (or they're more careful talkingabout the people who have enough money to hire a defamation lawyer).As NTA said, the free speech brigade should be outraged by both this law, and Porter's actions. The idea that it's illegal for a news organisation to report allegations of a serious crime against a senior public figure is scary.
guess the flipside is that it's scarily easy to destroy someone's reputation by publishing an accusation like this - permanent damage to your career, your family life. That's a general statement, I'm not commenting on the validity of this case
Yeah, I can see the positive intention of a law like that. This just seems so restrictive that it would make it impossible for the press to hold the powerful to account (at least the way you've described the law - no doubt it is a lot more complex, I'm sure the lawyers would have taken 5000 words to define what could be said in 20)
Aussie Politics