News Corp, Fairfax and TV networks join Bauer in fight against $4.5m Rebel Wilson defamation payout
News Corp, Fairfax, Seven, Nine, ABC and Macquarie Media have banded together to help Bauer Media in its appeal against its $4.5m defamation payout to actor Rebel Wilson.
The organisations take issue with the size of the damages awarded to Wilson and how much it exceeds the damages cap, media lawyer Justin Quill wrote in the Herald Sun on behalf of the alliance. They also contend the case has implications for free speech in Australia.
Wilson in the recent Amazon Super Bowl ad
I’m still a bit confused as to how exactly the other 6 media companies are supporting Bauer? As in, financially supporting or just shouting from the bleachers?
Why should there be a cap? Is there a cap on how much these organisations can earn by spreading lies and fake news?
Sure they don’t like it when it hurts them and their bottom line.
Now they know how it feels for those they target with false news and destroy their lives.
Hopefully they will think twice about publishing / broadcasting false news claims for the sake of ratings over real news
Law professor Ray Watterson, of the University of Newcastle (Australia), noted in Media Law in Australia (Oxford, second edition, 1988) that Lord Atkin ‘conceded in Sim v Stretch (1936) that judges and textbook writers alike have found difficulty in defining with precision the word “defamatory”.’ Professor Watterson explained how libel law works:
The mere publication of words defamatory of the plaintiff gives rise to a prima facie cause of action … a plaintiff has the benefit of the presumptions of falsity and of damage. He is not required to prove that the words are false; the law presumes in his favour that they are. The law also presumes that defamatory words cause harm. Thus it is not necessary for the plaintiff to … to prove that he suffered material or financial loss … Furthermore, a plaintiff is not required to establish that the defendant intended to harm his reputation …
Libel law thus oppresses defendants (and the community) because it is unfairly biased in favour of plaintiffs by a string of false presumptions: appearance (reputation) is always to be preferred to reality (character); the private right to reputation is always to be preferred to the public right to information; a slur is always false; the author of a slur is always guilty; the subject of a slur is always innocent; a slur is always intentional and always causes damage.
Still confused about the whole case, and our libel laws.
Bauer’s story was malicious, as so many of their stories are.
But Wilson WAS found to have told porkies – about her age and other things. Yet still, her hurt feelings and hurt acting career appear to have prevailed.
This is spot on.