Defamation, Twitter and Free Speech

Sarah Joseph

An extraordinary thing happened in Australia’s media community last week. Julie Posetti, a journalism lecturer and prolific tweeter, attended a journalism conference in Sydney. One of the speakers was Asa Wahlquist, who used to write climate change articles for the Australian.  The Australian has been under some fire recently for its perceived conservative bias (see, eg, here and here, with associated responses by the paper here and here). Of relevance, its coverage of climate change has been criticized for allegedly giving too much oxygen to climate scepticism.

Here the story gets murky. Posetti tweeted what were purported to be Wahlquist’s public comments at the conference.  The instantaneous reporting of public comments via Twitter is in fact very common.  The brouhaha following Posetti’s tweets is not.  The Australian’s editor-in-chief, Chris Mitchell, said on Friday that he will sue Posetti for defamation as her tweets seem to indicate that he was telling writers what to write about climate change. Wahlquist denies that Posetti’s tweets properly represent her comments. Posetti is presumably constrained in what she feels safe in saying right now:  let us assume that she believes that her tweets were a fair representation of Wahlquist’s statements.  Even if they were, Mitchell claims that there “is not protection from the law in repeating accurately allegations, falsely made”.

Mitchell’s assertions regarding the law are true … sort of.  One can perpetrate the tort of defamation by republishing, accurately, someone else’s defamatory statement, even if that statement was made in public.  But there are defences, including a whole area of complex law under the banner of “qualified privilege”. I am not a defamation law expert, but a review of the “defamation” entry in Halsbury’s Laws of Australia indicates to me that Posetti has a good chance of raising a successful defence.  In coming to this conclusion, I am assuming that there was no malice in her tweets:  this blog proceeds on that basis.

There are many curious aspects to this scenario. Mitchell is concerned about Posetti’s republication of material via tweet, yet those tweets were themselves repeated by his own newspaper (along with Crikey and the ABC), vastly escalating their impact. In fact, this phenomenon even has a name: the Streisand effect. Furthermore, the media reports the potentially defamatory statements of others all the time. Consider Mark Latham’s public assertions that Kevin Rudd was the leaker against the ALP in the recent federal election campaign. Rudd denies this, which implies that Latham’s statements were defamatory. Yet Latham’s assertions were all over the media, including the Australian.

The implications of the Mitchell/Posetti scenario for free speech are serious.  As noted above, it is this author’s opinion that Posetti’s tweets fall within available defences to defamation.  Furthermore, there is an implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution, and that freedom enhances Posetti’s position. The nature of the coverage of a major topic like climate change by a major newspaper is a relevant political issue for the purposes of that freedom, especially given that climate change and the Australian ‘s general editorial line  are so prominent in current public debate.

But the chilling effect of the threat of defamation action here seems disproportionate and potentially wide-ranging. The editor of a major newspaper is threatening legal action against a lecturer for tweeting tweets which I believe are likely to fall within applicable defences.  An alternative response, perhaps, was for his newspaper to publish his rejection of the perceived contentions of her tweets.  It will surprise me if this matter escalates to the point of a court case.  If so, Mitchell risks the setting of a precedent which, if it goes his way, could boomerang badly on his newspaper.

However, the  mere threat of legal action has sent an almighty shudder down collective spines on Twitter, many of whom lack the resources to defend themselves (and most tweeters certainly lack the backup of an organization like News Ltd, as is enjoyed by Mitchell).  Latika Bourke, a Canberra-based political journalist (and prolific tweeter), has explained the potential chilling effect nicely (in of course, a tweet), noting that the circumstances could “challenge Twitter’s whole being, and the spirit in which it was formed”.

15 comments

  • Your personal posting, “Defamation, Twitter and Free Speech
    | Castan Centre for Human Rights Law” was in fact worth
    writing a comment down here in the comment section!
    Basically needed to announce u did a very good job. Many thanks ,Kayla

  • “Defamation, Twitter and Free Speech | Castan Centre for Human Rights Law” was a terrific posting.

    In case it owned a lot more pictures it would definitely be
    perhaps even even better. Thanks -Delbert

  • “Defamation, Twitter and Free Speech | Castan
    Centre for Human Rights Law” was in fact certainly enjoyable and enlightening!
    Within modern world that’s tough to manage. Thx, Vickey

  • “Defamation, Twitter and Free Speech | Castan Centre for Human Rights
    Law” was indeed in fact entertaining and beneficial!
    In modern universe that’s difficult to manage. Thanks, Alexandra

  • WN,

    In this case Julie’s assertions have been tested and proven correct through a recording of the event.

    Notably The Australian has not covered this revelation.

    It is news when the Editor-in-chief decides to sue an individual for their purportedly defamatory reporting of someone else’s comments at a public event.

    It is not news when that Editor-in-chief is publicly exposed for making assertions without evidence, thereby calling his professional judgement over all reporting in his newspaper into question.

  • Sarah,

    I think you are almost completely wrong. Anyone who has been on Twitter and followed politics for a while can not escape Julie Posetti’s assertions masqueraded as fact. The threat of defamation, is a tool used within the rule of law to defend the truth. When the powerful do not defend the truth we will have problems in society. What Chris Mitchell’s threatening, and possibly following through with his threat, does is challenges the accused to identify their bona fides. A person without bona fides is defenseless and unable to honestly admit they are wrong. People who are unable to honestly admit they are wrong should be named and shamed when defaming those with the fortitude to defend the truth.

    So, does Julie want to test her version of the truth or can she honestly admit she was wrong, or worse- will she lose her voice because she has no moral fortitude at all.

    • Oops. Jolyon Sykes’ tape of the event confirms Posetti’s tweets were accurate.
      What was that about bones fide? Or bona fides (sic), if you insist.

    • My company is being boguht out, therefore, many of us are applying at another company. (we are all nurses, and I am a supervisor) In the interview, as I was being interviewed for a supervisor position, they asked me who I recommended for the CNA jobs. They then started calling names and I recommended all except one. I didn’t say anything about her just that I didn’t recommend her. The next day, I confided in a close friend and told her about them asking me for recommendations. She then goes back and tells some of the CNA’s, who then accuse me of slander. Have I committed slander by saying that I didn’t recommend this person for the job?

  • I’m a bit puzzled that it still seems uncertain whether Asa Wahlquist said those things that Julie Posetti tweeted or not. This was a big conference? Are there no other attendees who can confirm or deny?

    Thank you for your comments on the law! And a Streisand effect indeed, thanks to The Australian for bringing australian defamation laws to the attention of people from all over the world. 🙂

  • Not only did The Australian increase the readership of the tweets, but repeating and linking to the allegations they say are damaging (On at least two occasions, in the original article you link to and covered by Caroline Overington (No stranger to threatening legal action herself) in Media Diary in the Australian damages the strength of their legal position – IF the statement IS defamatory and damaging, why are they making sure MORE people are reading it? Is Mitchell planning on sueing Overington for defamation for repeating the defamatory statement?

    The whole thing is very, very strange.

Submit a comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s