Social media groups have emerged designed to protect women from bad dating experiences. Those who use them could be liable to being sued for defamation.
An expert on media law explains how newspapers avoid defamation when investigating a story.
Two books by Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters about their reporting on Ben Roberts-Smith shed light on money, power, myth-making and the importance of investigative journalism.
To what degree can the First Amendment be used to protect someone from the consequences of lying?
In his judgment, the judge said he was satisfied the most serious imputations were proven on the balance of probabilities, which is the test in such civil cases.
More broadly, this case shows how hard it is to use defamation law to repair any perceived damage to your reputation. Once a case begins, you never can control what will be said in court.
The trial is likely to go ahead in November this year, and last for around four weeks.
After the article was published, Murdoch sent the publishers of Crikey a ‘concerns notice’, essentially threatening to sue them. In response, the publishers almost dared Murdoch to sue.
In the age of TikTok, images of people in public go viral all the time. Here’s how the law does and doesn’t protect you.
Australia’s defamation laws have been inadequate for years - as this case starkly shows.
With the high-profile defamation trial over, an expert explains how to avoid becoming the next Coleen Rooney or Rebekah Vardy.
The government’s plan to make social media companies hand over trolls’ details aims to make it easier for victims to sue their harassers for defamation. But this conflates two very different concepts.
Today’s ruling may inspire many social media account managers to more tightly restrict comments — or, where possible, switch them off completely.
Porter claims even though he wasn’t named in the ABC article, he was easily identifiable to many Australians. For the ABC, the defences to defamation are notoriously difficult to establish.
The ins and outs of a fiercely contested defamation case.
While the latest changes to defamation laws are a step in the right direction, much more could be done to improve them for the benefit of the public.
The NSW Court of Appeal’s Dylan Voller decision means the media may be liable for the hurtful things users write on social pages. This will have many media companies in a panic.
The Australian Press Council’s ruling suggests an exemption for ‘entertainment magazines’ from the standard of factual reporting. This ruling has no basis in Australian defamation law.
Media freedom is good, but absolute media freedom could lead to a nastier, more brutish public discourse.
Defamation law reform is on the horizon. Social media companies may be held more liable for what they publish. But this could come at the expense of everyday users.