Private Media has filed its defence to the defamation claim made by Lachlan Murdoch against the company and its journalists. Since the beginning, our intention has been to bring the use of defamation law by the rich and powerful into the light, so we wanted to explain the key points of our legal defence and what we are going to do from here.
Our defence has three main elements.
Firstly, we simply deny that we have defamed Lachlan Murdoch. The relevant words in our article are “The Murdochs and their slew of poisonous Fox News commentators are the unindicted co-conspirators of this continuing crisis”. The court will decide what our readers would have taken them to mean. We do not believe that the average Australian of reasonable intelligence (the test for this part of defamation law) would have read our article and interpreted it in the way Mr Murdoch claims.
Secondly, we take issue with whether Crikey should be prevented by law from stating honestly held opinions, as an act of free speech, on a matter of obvious and high public interest. It is our opinion that Fox News actively supported and promoted a concerted attempt to jeopardise American democracy. That attempt began with Donald Trump’s false claims of a “stolen” election and culminated in the violent mob assault on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
It is fair that someone might disagree with the opinion we expressed. But we think it is a reasonable argument to make, and the right to express such an opinion is absolutely critical to the functioning of an open, modern democracy. We stand firmly against censorship, especially in matters of significant public interest. As such, our case will test the new “public interest” defence, specifically as it relates to opinion writing, as opposed to investigative reporting.
The final element of our defence is that we do not believe Lachlan Murdoch has suffered any serious harm. Again, we think it is important in an open, well-functioning society that the rich and powerful can be critiqued, and that there is a high bar to reach before they have suffered serious harm from an opinion article.
Taking on this fight is risky and we are not foolish enough to predict its outcome. However, we believe that there is an issue of fundamental public importance at stake, and that is why we are defending the case brought against our company and our journalists.
From here, we must largely hand the matter over to the courts of law. While other media outlets will be free to critique the process and offer all kinds of opinion on the matters at stake, we intend to largely remain silent. In the rest of our journalism, however, we will continue to hold the rich and powerful to account, as we have always done at Crikey.
We believe what we published was in the public interest. We believe unreservedly in the principle of a free press. Thank you to all who have supported us, and all of those who continue to do so.
Having read the article in question, at the time it was written, I can honestly say it was nothing more than what I had personally read in other media, including the New York Times over quite a lengthy period of time.
My own opinion on the matter, is much the same as the Opinion piece at issue. For the life of me I cannot understand the brouhaha it has caused, given the lengthy articles I’d previously read in the Times and other media reports.
One of the reasons I subscribed to Crikey in the first place, was because of what I perceived to be honest, factual reporting and opinions – whether or not I agree or disagree with what is written is irrelevant – facts are the issue of most interest and importance to me, personally.
For what it’s worth, I wish Crikey well in this important, democratic process of standing up for its core values and beliefs, and fully support their efforts to not be cowed into submission by the Goliath that is Fox News.
The problem is that our libel laws are much stricter than the US’s.
The classroom thug never likes being called a thug. Best of luck.
I do hope that those sensible chaps on the Clapham omnibus may favourably consider your submissions.
Politely put, anyways. Free speech may be surprisingly expensive ?
I hadn’t read the article but was unsurprised by the reporting of it and suspect I absolutely agree. Fox news has fanned embers into flames in the US and is trying to do so here. It’s quite a trick to use underlying concerns, some related to pay and wealth inequality, and drum up support for the people most responsible for those concerns. Quite a trick. I now understand why “populism” is used as a put-down.
Crikey is a subscription I pay mostly to sponsor your efforts. Thank you. The reporting on the first hearing has bought me here for the first time in months. I’m also going to sling you a few bucks to help with the legal stuff.
Who would you trust? Trust is not in the genes of some families .You can trust a thief but not a lier