NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

 

[JackOutback]

I'm not sure if you are talking about Clarkson or the indigenous players.

Technically, Jackson's article is defamation against the named coaches, whether or not it's true, as their reputation is undoubtedly damaged. But if he can show that it is very likely to be true, Jackson can't be sued for the defamation.

Or in other words, the formal definition of defamation isn't interested in truth or Australia's defamation laws - it's only interested in what has happened to Clarko's reputation - it's been defamed, which would be pretty hard to dispute. Whether or not it is defamatory isn't in dispute - it is defamatory. Whether or not it is true and thus legally ok to damage his reputation is what is in question.

That's... not true. Defamation means to harm the good reputation of someone by communicating false statements. You'd have to go back to the Bible to find a definition that doesn't include the requirement that statements be false.

 

[Del191229]

Which attacks? And against who?

Your sealion act is quite tiresome

 

[evo]

In this country, when a reporter defames someone, there are only a select few defences available to them. One is a truth defence. But in order to argue that, they need to be able to demonstrate the imputation conveyed in their work is substantially true. Arguing that they’ve accurately conveyed someone’s allegation is insufficient. They need to stack up the allegation itself.

Im not a defamation lawyer, but I don't think that is right mate.

Seems to me as a journalist if you directly quote someone, put it in quotation marks, and attribute who has said it, then you aren't defaming anyone. At worst you are relaying an act of defamation.

How can a journalist reasonably be expected to prove that it is true? They weren't present during the act. They aren't a member of the police force, nor are they a judge who can call witnesses under oath.

 

[blackshadow]

Rather interesting that The ABC did not respond to questions from The Australian re Rusty’s tweet….

 

[Forward Press]

Im not a defamation lawyer, but I don't think that is right mate.

Seems to me as a journalist if you directly quote someone, put it in quotation marks, and attribute who has said it, then you aren't defaming anyone. At worst you are relaying an act of defamation.

How can a journalist reasonably be expected to prove that it is true? They weren't present during the act. They aren't a member of the police force, nor are they a judge who can call witnesses under oath.

You are correct and I have no idea what angle MP is going on - there is no reasonable expectation of a journalist to be the police, judge, jury and private investigator all at once before they publish. Imposing those requirements would see investigative journalism and crime reporting vanish overnight - welcome to nothing but puff pieces.

 

[Forward Press]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I want a flawless investigation, if clarko can get through that then im relieved.

I do think the emails to newbold are a concern. He sat on them for ten years. If i was the complainant I would be going public too.

The ABC article also reported emails and other documents produced contemporaneously at the time of the alleged events. Those persisting with the 'no evidence, no corroboration' line are going down an incorrect and factually wrong path.

The investigation will no doubt go over any documents before making its recommendations and would seek to verify their authenticity - but arguing that the journalist was publishing based on nothing but hearsay and conjecture from interviewees are once again incorrect and factually wrong.

 

[Ricketz]

Your sealion act is quite tiresome

What's getting tiresome is you making wild claims without supporting them with a shred of evidence.

If you actually had some evidence to support these claims I wouldn't need to figure out whether what you were saying was true or not.

 

[Le Grille]

The ABC article also reported emails and other documents produced contemporaneously at the time of the alleged events. Those persisting with the 'no evidence, no corroboration' line are going down an incorrect and factually wrong path.

The investigation will no doubt go over any documents before making its recommendations and would seek to verify their authenticity - but arguing that the journalist was publishing based on nothing but hearsay and conjecture from interviewees are once again incorrect and factually wrong.

Someone released the emails to newbold, provided the are genuine, I find it really odd that there was no documented internal investigation to point to, any organisation in Australia would do that , to protect themselves as a minimum.

I have no issues with the article, I think jackson got Sonja’s letter wrong and I’m happy that apology played out.

But the only way this gets resolved is a full flawless investigation. I’m all for that.

I’m not convinced that the afl are capable of running it.

 

[sr36]

That's... not true. Defamation means to harm the good reputation of someone by communicating false statements. You'd have to go back to the Bible to find a definition that doesn't include the requirement that statements be false.

Before reading up on this I would have agreed with you, because that is it's layman use. But you might want to read a few more dictionaries. Some definitions include truth some don't.

I'm not in law, so don't know for sure, but when it's discussed in a legal context, it doesn't seem to include it. M

Defamation law in Australia: A quick guide

Defamation can cause serious harm to a person's reputation and as a result their life. The laws of defamation serve to protect a person's name and character. Our experienced lawyers have provided a quick guide on defamation laws in Australia.

gordonlegal.com.au

And more relevantly, Aussie law seems to treat defamation as not including untruth. As you don't have to demonstrate untruth in order to sue for defamation, the onus on the publisher to show truth. Or so I'm led to believe. Which would suggest that you can make a successful case for defamation, without showing your definition of defamation.

 

[SunshineBoy]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I want a flawless investigation, if clarko can get through that then im relieved.

I do think the emails to newbold are a concern. He sat on them for ten years. If i was the complainant I would be going public too.

The emails to newbold would never have come to light if not for the ABC article after all he is on the AFL commision and as such had an incentive to keep them buried under Gilligans carpet

 

[Makeshift Park]

Im not a defamation lawyer, but I don't think that is right mate.

Seems to me as a journalist if you directly quote someone, put it in quotation marks, and attribute who has said it, then you aren't defaming anyone. At worst you are relaying an act of defamation.

"Relaying an act of defamation" is still defamation.

How can a journalist reasonably be expected to prove that it is true? They weren't present during the act. They aren't a member of the police force, nor are they a judge who can call witnesses under oath.

That's why good investigative journalism in this country is very bloody hard to do.

You are correct and I have no idea what angle MP is going on - there is no reasonable expectation of a journalist to be the police, judge, jury and private investigator all at once before they publish. Imposing those requirements would see investigative journalism and crime reporting vanish overnight - welcome to nothing but puff pieces.

Don't take my word for it.

Chau Chak Wing’s $590,000 defamation win shows investigative journalism is risky business

Journalists need to have the facts to support not just what they say explicitly, but what their work implies.

theconversation.com

 

[Le Grille]

The emails to newbold would never have come to light if not for the ABC article after all he is on the AFL commision and as such had an incentive to keep them buried under Gilligans carpet

It’s really worrisome

 

[gouki88]

Why should anyone respond directly to your trolling?

That you choose this thread to troll on says everything that needs to be said about you. Take some time to reflect on your behaviour and stop posting inflammatory garbage.

"Everyone who doesn't completely agree with me is a troll"

 

[SunshineBoy]

Someone released the emails to newbold, provided the are genuine, I find it really odd that there was no documented internal investigation to point to, any organisation in Australia would do that , to protect themselves as a minimum.

I have no issues with the article, I think jackson got Sonja’s letter wrong and I’m happy that played out.

But the only way this gets resolved is a full flawless investigation. I’m all for that.

I’m not convinced that the afl are capable of running it.

What do you mean someone released them to newbold? They are his emails, the AFL per se because of these emails have known per se for a long time about these issues.

if they weren’t factual or doctored newbold and the afl and the HFC would have dismissed them straight out and said they were faked , there’s an awful lot of smoke and I’m not sure Gilligan has a big enough carpet.

 

[Ricketz]

"Relaying an act of defamation" is still defamation.

That's why good investigative journalism in this country is very bloody hard to do.

Don't take my word for it.

Chau Chak Wing’s $590,000 defamation win shows investigative journalism is risky business

Journalists need to have the facts to support not just what they say explicitly, but what their work implies.

theconversation.com

His work implies there are allegations made against Clarkson, Fagan and Burt. Your entire argument is now void.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Rather interesting that The ABC did not respond to questions from The Australian re Rusty’s tweet….

I've gotta say, some of the stuff you find interesting, is fu**ing weird.

That's probably the least interesting thing I've heard or read about in about 6 months.

My mum called me earlier to tell me that she's thinking of buying an air conditioner. That's even more interesting than your point.

 

[Le Grille]

What do you mean someone released them to newbold? They are his emails, the AFL per se because of these emails have known per se for a long time about these issues.

if they weren’t factual or doctored newbold and the afl and the HFC would have dismissed them straight out and said they were faked , there’s an awful lot of smoke and I’m not sure Gilligan has a big enough carpet.

Someone released to the public the emails sent to newbold, he denied replying to them even though he appears to as per the email trail.

The rule of thumb if the email comes from your address it’s your problem. I doubt a PA would be dumb enough to reply to emails of this nature.

This is what bugs me, why didn’t newbold act?

My point was provided they are true (which they appear to be), how has this not been addressed sooner? Why did newbold not act, I’m assuming if they had they’d have said so

Sorry I mistyped.

 

[the big lebowski]

It’s really worrisome

Is it? I found the emails to be neither here nor there.

They are a one sided account of a person, that had no connect to the hawthorn football club that was trying to get what she wanted (fair enough), and she acknowledges that she met with the club post the emails (clearly not ignored).

She says she spoke to an aflpa psych, which is either not true, or true and the aflpa deemed it not worth following up on. She spoke to police, who didn’t think it was worthwhile following up on. If at that point her partner was happy not to live with her, what’s the issue specifically with the emails?

Are these emails and the mafia comment the entirety of the “proof”?

 

[SunshineBoy]

Someone released to the public the emails sent to newbold, he denied replying to them even though he appears to as per the email trail.

The rule of thumb if the email comes from your address it’s your problem. I doubt a PA would be dumb enough to reply to emails of this nature.

My point was provided they are true (which they appear to be), how has this not been addressed sooner? Why did newbold not act, I’m assuming if they had they’d have said so

Sorry I mistyped.

Cool and that’s why I say that the AFL was aware

 

[blackshadow]

I've gotta say, some of the stuff you find interesting, is fu**ing weird.

That's probably the least interesting thing I've heard or read about in about 6 months.

My mum called me earlier to tell me that she's thinking of buying an air conditioner. That's even more interesting that your point.

Some of you were getting on your high horses about Fagan and Clarkson not replying to The ABC.

Rather ironic that The ABC is not responding to questions being put to them about their hero Rusty.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Aussie law seems to treat defamation as not including untruth. As you don't have to demonstrate untruth in order to sue for defamation, the onus on the publisher to show truth. Or so I'm led to believe. Which would suggest that you can make a successful case for defamation, without showing your definition of defamation.

In a nutshell...

If you're a reporter in the USA who is being sued for defamation, its up to the person suing you to prove that your reporting is false.
If you're a reporter in Australia who is being sued for defamation, its up to the reporter to defend their journalism, which usually involves proving the imputations are true.

 

[perplexed]

"Everyone who doesn't completely agree with me is a troll"

Hi Mate. Are you still making a fool of yourself by claiming Jackson's tweet about Hood was fine? Or do now agree with Jackson that he defamed her?

 

[Satan]

What do you mean someone released them to newbold? They are his emails, the AFL per se because of these emails have known per se for a long time about these issues.

if they weren’t factual or doctored newbold and the afl and the HFC would have dismissed them straight out and said they were faked , there’s an awful lot of smoke and I’m not sure Gilligan has a big enough carpet.

 

[gouki88]

What's getting tiresome is you making wild claims without supporting them with a shred of evidence.

If you actually had some evidence to support these claims I wouldn't need to figure out whether what you were saying was true or not.

Are you trying to suggest his personal dislike of Jackson isn't enough? Shocking!!

 

[evo]

"Relaying an act of defamation" is still defamation.

If that were true then everyone here in this thread who has requoted the quotes would also be liable.

Its also worth noting that in cases of defamation being a public figure also increases the burden to prove defamation, hence why members of the public can pretty much say what they want about Scomo or Trump lol.