Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has declared her successful defamation suit against Zoo Weekly as taking a stand against sexism. It isn’t. It’s yet another demonstration of the power of the state and the travesty of a free press in this country.
Just like Joe Hockey’s defamation case against Fairfax, Hanson-Young’s lawsuit is an intimidation tactic by an elected government official to cow the media into self-censorship. In a democracy our press needs the ability to write about, examine, hold to account and yes, satirise, those we elect to represent us. But Hanson-Young’s disgraceful legal action will leave Zoo and every other media outlet that bit more afraid to write about or lampoon her. Which suits her.
Yes, we find it distasteful to defend spank mag Zoo, particularly since its challenge to her — to pose semi-nude in its pages in return for safe harbour for a boatload of asylum seekers — and its subsequent photoshopping of her head onto a lingerie model’s body are deeply offensive to the serious question of offshore detention of asylum seekers and to women. But standing up for free speech means standing up for people whose views you find abhorrent — and Hanson-Young, as an elected representative, should believe more in a free press than in her own personal feelings.
In the United States, elected officials are held to a much higher standard than private citizens, and the burden of proof on them to prove a defamation case is consequentially higher. The United States Supreme Court has rightly decided that elected officials are and should be more accountable for their actions than ordinary citizens, and that the dangers of government overreach are far more devastating than the dangers of a journalist damaging a politician’s reputation. We wish the courts would make a similar determination here, but so far the piss-weak “public interest” defence has not been much of a shield for journalists under attack from overly zealous pollies wielding writs of defamation as weapons to silence them.
“As a mother it is a huge concern that my own daughter can Google my name and find images of my face photoshopped on to the body of a near-naked woman,” said Hanson-Young. We find it much worse that her daughter can google her name and find that her mother has put one more nail in the coffin of a free press.
No, sorry, I don’t agree on this. Photoshopping somebody’s head onto someone else’s body is not journalism. For the record, I think the tele should have also have been taken to court for the nazi references on their front pages in relation to Labor
Oh please. Zoo lost any call to be included as “press”, free or otherwise, when they issued the original challenge. Their followup was unnecessary, unwarranted and of no journalistic merit at all – just like Chris Kenny buggering a dog.
Thoroughly agree. The right to mock the political class is important, even when done in a sledgehammer-type way like this.
Wow, I’m impressed. Recently I haven’t been sure where Crikey stood on free press. Much of its commentary has been morphing into the sort of distorted and confused “leftism” that Sarah Hanson-Young’s party represents.
Which isn’t “left” at all, or not the sort which values fee speech. Her party wants the media “regulated” – by who or what is never clear, nor is exactly what will be permissible. We do know is that views not deemed acceptable are routinely labeled “hate-speak”, as I’m sure my effort here will be called.
I’m from the left, and her party’s position is NOT mine… I have never purchased Zoo in my life, nor would I even bother to read one in a barber shop. Though several journos I know have worked on lads mags in the past. One is now making a good living picking up odd jobs as a writer and sub, the other is the CEO of his own successful independent media company.
As a result of Hansen-Young vs Zoo victory, the predicable campaign to ban Zoo and like mags from the shelves has already begun. I listened to an impassioned advocate of censorship on RN this morning. She was speaking for the “progressive” left and the ABC gave her plenty of time to make her case, completely unchallenged.
If they are successful, Hanson-Young’s party and all her supporters will no doubt cheer. Media workers will have fewer opportunities. Genuine lefties will hang their heads, and be just be that little bit more fearful of the “regulated” future to come…
beyond wrong on this one Crikey. If it had been Kathy Freeman’s head transposed on the body of a Klu Klux KLan member you would still be arguing for freedom of the press? Good luck if you answer yes – you will get your own freedom. The freedom of not having any subscribers. The press need to have standards. pure and simple.