LogFAQs > #922996044

LightningAce11 posted...

There are people wanting the law to be changed, since it does let people open up frivolous lawsuits against media. Sydney is called the defamation capital of the world for a reason. It's an interesting law to study here.

There needs to be a better balance, but for individuals, it works better than for corporations.

https://www.slatergordon.com.au/commercial-litigation/defamation

To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things:

That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts
That you or your business were clearly identified in it
That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation.

and

Some common defences against defamation include:

That the publication was an honest opinion, rather than statement of fact
That the publication was of public concern or substantially true
That the publication was obligatory for a legal, social or moral reason
That the aggrieved party is unlikely to sustain any harm to their reputation
That the defendant did not know or ought not to have known that the published material was defamatory (e.g., a bookseller may not have known the contents of a publication placed on display)
That the publication was made in a privileged context such as a parliamentary debate, in court or in a tribunal judgment.

So this seems to be similar to US law, at least on the basics. Particularly the bolded, which would match an affirmative defense of truth. Italics would match with the "actual malice" concept in US defamation caselaw.

I'd be all for something like a federal anti-SLAPP law that would allow defendants to recover legal costs from plaintiffs for successful motions. That would certainly cut down on frivolous suits.

Shadow20201 posted...

TurgidTyrant posted...

I keep this forum in my own back pocket specifically for the purpose of finding alternative viewpoints, and testing myself against them.

Some viewpoints are more entrenched than others but I can appreciate the value of testing one's beliefs and ideas against other viewpoints.

It's very much about exposing myself to other arguments. If I can test my beliefs and ideas against others' arguments, it makes me more confident in their validity. I can't say I've been wholly impressed with what I've been up against thus far, but it is worthwhile from time to time.