Nicky Winmar to take legal action against Newman, Scott and Sheahan

[the harry]

Can't people have an opinion any more? I've growing tired of this crap.

It depends how factually based that opinion is and how you choose to express it.

Taking an extreme example, if I had a large audience and said that someone had an extensive criminal history for very unsavory things involving minors, when that was incorrect, it is understandable that person may be somewhat aggrieved and seek some form of restitution. Especially if by expressing it on the scale I did had a negative impact on the subject, financially or otherwise.

Essentially, you can have opinions, but there are consequences for actions and in this instance it appears that the court will decide.

 

[freddy mercury]

Smearing someone's character is very different to having a differemt opinion, in a legal sense.

Even the biggest deadshit knows that.

My character gets attack regularly. Have you ever played cricket against your former side

 

[Xtreme]

I'm the least sensitive person on Bigfooty TYVM

 

[Black white]

I'm the least sensitive person on Bigfooty TYVM

Sorry I upset you. I truly am.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

My character gets attack regularly. Have you ever played cricket against your former side

I'd wager they hung shit on you when you were playing for them too.

 

[Black white]

Brilliant , the group behind winmar who graffitied on Vic park a few years back and tries to monetise this image will look very stupid when this comes to court. The truth will come out.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Misrepresentation.

What is the law that has been broken?

 

[Chief]

What is the law that has been broken?

I assume it’s in the realms of defamation?

 

[Suspense]

Smearing someone's character is very different to having a differemt opinion, in a legal sense.

Even the biggest deadshit knows that.

It depends on the nature of the defamation. s31 of the Defamation Act 2005 provides the 'Defence of Honest Opinion' - which basically considers whether the comment was made as a statement of fact or whether it was made as an honest opinion of the commentator (regardless of how disagreeable that opinion may be to the plaintiff).

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/da200599/s31.html

From what I remember of the podcast, I don't think they said anything as a statement of fact - they were basically recounting their recollection of the events at the time and stating that they were different to the current narrative - and in their opinion, it has been hijacked by activists.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

I assume it’s in the realms of defamation?

You know more about the law than I do, chief

If they are going the defamation route, do they not have to demonstrate that what has been said is factually incorrect?

I wonder how high the burden of proof will be...

 

[Chief]

You know ore about the law than I do, chief

If they are going the defamation route, do they not have to demonstrate that what has been said is factually incorrect?

I wonder how high the burden of proof will be...

I am sure we have a few lawyers around who can tell us the level of proof needed in such a case.

 

[freddy mercury]

I'd wager they hung sh*t on you when you were playing for them too.

Yep. Therefore I'm taking them to court.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Yep. Therefore I'm taking them to court.

What for?

 

[Black white]

It depends on the nature of the defamation. s31 of the Defamation Act 2005 provides the 'Defence of Honest Opinion' - which basically considers whether the comment was made as a statement of fact or whether it was made as an honest opinion of the commentator (regardless of how disagreeable that opinion may be to the plaintiff).

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/da200599/s31.html

From what I remember of the podcast, I don't think they said anything as a statement of fact - they were basically recounting their recollection of the events at the time and stating that they were different to the current narrative - and in their opinion, it has been hijacked by activists.

Hijacked by activists, surely not

 

[sdfc]

It depends how factually based that opinion is and how you choose to express it.

Taking an extreme example, if I had a large audience and said that someone had an extensive criminal history for very unsavory things involving minors, when that was incorrect, it is understandable that person may be somewhat aggrieved and seek some form of restitution. Especially if by expressing it on the scale I did had a negative impact on the subject, financially or otherwise.

Essentially, you can have opinions, but there are consequences for actions and in this instance it appears that the court will decide.

I don't see how Newman etc laughable theory from 27 years ago is worthy of being sued for.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You know more about the law than I do, chief

If they are going the defamation route, do they not have to demonstrate that what has been said is factually incorrect?

I wonder how high the burden of proof will be...

You don't 'charge' someone with defamation though do you?

Don't you 'sue' for defamation?

So it's not even necessarily if they defamed you or not - it's the impact of that defamation that you sue them for isn't it?

 

[sdfc]

You don't 'charge' someone with defamation though do you?

Don't you 'sue' for defamation?

So it's not even necessarily if they defamed you or not - it's the impact of that defamation that you sue them for isn't it?

What was the impact?

 

[Altum Volantes]

I think the story sure has gathered a lot more....momentum...than it original held. I think it’s something a lot of different people/parties have managed to get a grip of - and yeah, Nicky has certainly embraced it.

That said, Michael Long did more for bringing racial vilification to the surface at the time and really put his neck out to take it on.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

What was the impact?

I wouldn't have a clue.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Maybe Sam can come out in blackface again to demonstrate his point more clearly

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Surely Sam can't be that racist given how glowingly he has talked many times over the years about his relationship with Polly Farmer.

"I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black"

 

[Kram]

I am sure we have a few lawyers around who can tell us the level of proof needed in such a case.

 

[Black white]

SBS will love this

 

[sdfc]

"I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black"

Maybe he's just a buffoon. Racist is fast becoming a run of the mill insult.

 

[Black white]

"I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black"

"I haven't got any black friends, in fact I've never even met an aboriginal I do think we should give them more land ,just not my inner Melbourne. I study dreamtime at school. I hate racists"