Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Niidae Wiki
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Defamation
(section)
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
====Online==== On 10 December 2002, the [[High Court of Australia]] delivered judgment in the Internet defamation case of ''[[Dow Jones v Gutnick]]''.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|56|2002|litigants=Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick |link=Dow Jones v Gutnick |parallelcite=(2002) 210 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 575 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> The judgment established that internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in their Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian defamation law. The case gained worldwide attention and is often said, inaccurately, to be the first of its kind. A similar case that predates ''Dow Jones v Gutnick'' is ''[[Berezovsky v Michaels]]'' in England.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000511/bere-1.htm |title=Judgments{{snd}}Berezovsky v. Michaels and Others Glouchkov v. Michaels and Others (Consolidated Appeals) |date=8 May 2000 |website=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] |access-date=7 September 2023}}</ref> Australia's first [[Twitter]] defamation case to go to trial is believed to be ''Mickle v Farley''. The defendant, former [[Orange High School (New South Wales)|Orange High School]] student Andrew Farley was ordered to pay $105,000 to a teacher for writing defamatory remarks about her on the social media platform.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Whitbourn |first1=Michaela |title=The tweet that cost $105,000 |url=https://www.smh.com.au/technology/the-tweet-that-cost-105000-20140304-341kl.html |access-date=2 March 2019 |newspaper=The Sydney Morning Herald |date=4 March 2014}}</ref> A more recent case in defamation law was ''Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited'' [2015], heard in the [[Federal Court of Australia]]. This judgment was significant as it demonstrated that tweets, consisting of even as little as three words, can be defamatory, as was held in this case.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCA|652|2015|litigants=Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited |courtname=auto}}.</ref>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Niidae Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Encyclopedia:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
Defamation
(section)
Add topic