-
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)
-
@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.
Utterly the opposite. There's no charge, no witness and no record of interview, so the accusation can never be tested. So why should an agency get to air the accusation? Replace the accused with a family member you care for and see what you think of the circumstances in that light.
-
@antipodean 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.
Utterly the opposite. There's no charge, no witness and no record of interview, so the accusation can never be tested. So why should an agency get to air the accusation? Replace the accused with a family member you care for and see what you think of the circumstances in that light.
Or replace the accuser with a family member you care for, and you might think of it very differently.
It's a really difficult situation. It's wrong to assume his guilt, but it's also wrong to just pretend the allegations didn't happen.
What is not grey is that any hint of a cover up or mistakes made in the investigation should be thoroughly investigated.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Replace the accused with a family member you care for and see what you think of the circumstances in that light.
A family member who was not even named in an article, but came out with a tearful denial of all wrongdoing shortly thereafter, on the basis that people might be able to identify them. First thought is that family member had something to hide, which is neither here nor there. EDIT: it would depend on the family member, of course.
The ABC weren't stupid enough to name him. He named himself. How that meets the bar for defamation I'm not precisely sure.
-
It is certainly a very difficult, complex, murky situation. There is a balance to be struck between the public interest of a very serious allegation against a very senior and powerful individual, and his right to a presumption of innocence.
We don't want innocent people to have their careers and families destroyed by false accusations, but equally we don't want people to get away with raping and abusing women with impunity.
Which of those two things do you think is a bigger problem at the moment?
-
It's such a horrible binary situation.
Either he did it or he did not. If he did, then he should be cast from public life and face the consequences of his actions, but that can't happen.
But if he didn't, then he's being strung up on false allegations which will follow him for the rest of his days, without a chance to ever properly clear his name.
It's a classic 'no winners' situation.
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Replace the accused with a family member you care for and see what you think of the circumstances in that light.
A family member who was not even named in an article, but came out with a tearful denial of all wrongdoing shortly thereafter, on the basis that people might be able to identify them. First thought is that family member had something to hide, which is neither here nor there. EDIT: it would depend on the family member, of course.
The ABC weren't stupid enough to name him. He named himself. How that meets the bar for defamation I'm not precisely sure.
It doesn't matter if they actually name him if they provide enough detail for people to easily make the imputation that it's him. I don't need to say Nick if I say bald Australian who loves Tesla and routinely writes on a NZ sports forum...
-
I haven't read the article in question - guessing it might have been pulled from the internet by the lawyers.
But from what I understand, Porter would need to prove that the article:
1 - gave enough info to identify him, and
2 - accused him of a crime (or said there were stronger grounds for suspicion of guilty than there really were?)Is that right? Or can he sue them just for reporting that an allegation was made even if they don't imply that it is true / likely to be true?
-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
It is certainly a very difficult, complex, murky situation. There is a balance to be struck between the public interest of a very serious allegation against a very senior and powerful individual, and his right to a presumption of innocence.
We don't want innocent people to have their careers and families destroyed by false accusations, but equally we don't want people to get away with raping and abusing women with impunity.
Which of those two things do you think is a bigger problem at the moment?
Well part of the problem as I understand the reporting is that she consented to a sex act and then others were performed. The law at the time didn't account for recklessness (https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/1991-03-17/act-1900-040#sec.61R), so the accused has to know in 1988 that consent has been withdrawn. So evidence would need to be provided that was the case. We can't ask the accuser who withdrew the complaint, we can't look at the non-existent record of interview so what do we have other than the printed accusation?
The mere idea that you can be strung up like this in the modern era and be subjected to a trial by media is repugnant to the concept of rule by law.
-
@antipodean Well whether NSW law allowed for withdrawal of consent in 1988 is hardly the issue. It is only relevant in deciding whether to charge him with a criminal offence. But when deciding whether someone is a fit person to be AG, or whether reporting on it is in the public interest, the argument that "it might be illegal under today's laws, but I would have got off on a technicality at the time" isn't a great one.
Plus it sounds a lot like the character assassination of women that often follows accusations of sexual crimes.
Anyway, it's not even relevant here because CP maintained that nothing happened at all.
-
@gibbonrib I'm only interested in the rule of law. I make no commentary about Porter. I've never met him. I don't care if the AG is a womanizer or has failed marriages.
I am categorically not a fan of the current government, nor the clown that leads it. The broader problem as I see it is the alternative hasn't made a compelling case that they aren't at least as bad.
-
I'm into the rule of law too. But that doesn't mean that unless a person can be proven to have committed a crime then there's nothing to see here. Plenty of legal experts have expressed the view that an independent enquiry would in no way contradict the rule of law. But apparently Scomo knows better than them.
And besides, a person may do something that is awful, but not illegal, that makes them unfit for public office.
-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
I'm into the rule of law too. But that doesn't mean that unless a person can be proven to have committed a crime then there's nothing to see here. Plenty of legal experts have expressed the view that an independent enquiry would in no way contradict the rule of law. But apparently Scomo knows better than them.
Which legal experts think it's a good idea to give air to accusations that can not be tested? I'm coming around to the argument that an inquiry to ascertain the identity of those who make these anonymous accusations may be a good idea. Consequences and repercussions...
And besides, a person may do something that is awful, but not illegal, that makes them unfit for public office.
I don't subscribe to moral arguments.
-
So every criminal trial would either end up with the defendent being convicted, or their accuser? And of course every criminal investigation that doesn't even make it it trial would also result result the victim being arrested. Sounds like something from Saudia Arabia or Taliban Afghan.
-
@antipodean Not knowing anything about these people, just reading the arguments here, I'm leaning towards your view of things.
You can't have people getting smeared on accusations that can't be proven. That's the Twitter mob mentality.
Yes, you can have a scandal that's not illegal, but immoral, but you have to have some evidence. Sad fact is people do lie, particular when there is something at stake.
-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
So every criminal trial would either end up with the defendent being convicted, or their accuser? And of course every criminal investigation that doesn't even make it it trial would also result result the victim being arrested. Sounds like something from Saudia Arabia or Taliban Afghan.
Hell of a strawman there.
-
@kirwan well Anitopedan said
"I'm coming around to the argument that an inquiry to ascertain the identity of those who make these anonymous accusations may be a good idea. Consequences and repercussions..."
Admittedly he didn't say what the consequences and repercussions would be, I assumed that he meant criminal consequences, maybe he just meant doxing. But otherwise his message is very clear - don't make much accusations unless you are absolutely sure there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
Anyway, isn't the identity of the accuser known in this case? Most reports aren't naming her, but I heard her lawyer on TV use her name.
-
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean Not knowing anything about these people, just reading the arguments here, I'm leaning towards your view of things.
You can't have people getting smeared on accusations that can't be proven. That's the Twitter mob mentality.
Yes, you can have a scandal that's not illegal, but immoral, but you have to have some evidence. Sad fact is people do lie, particular when there is something at stake.
But isn't this the exact mentality that has lead to centuries of near impunity for rapists and abusers - if you do it out of sight then you can get away with it.
Pitchforks and Twitter mobs aren't the solution, but nor is the status quo. Saying "it can't be proven, so just ignore it" just means carry on and nothing changes.
Aussie Politics