Qld Robert Irwin asks Pauline Hanson to please explain ‘defamatory’ cartoon

[Geelong_Sicko]

I don't like Pauline Hanson. I don't vote One Nation. But I'm struggling to see how Robert Irwin's going to prevail against the concept of satire if he actually goes for a defamation lawsuit against her.

Robert Irwin asks Pauline Hanson to please explain ‘defamatory’ cartoon

Lawyers representing Irwin sent a cease and desist letter to producers of a One Nation cartoon, alleging it was defamatory and deceptively used Irwin’s image.

www.smh.com.au

June 15, 2024

Robert Irwin has threatened to sue the producers of One Nation leader Pauline Hanson’s cartoon comedy series over an episode satirising the Queensland government and his involvement in a state tourism campaign.

On Friday, FC Lawyers, representing Irwin, sent a cease and desist letter to Melbourne-based Stepmates Studios alleging an episode of Hanson’s Please Explain series, uploaded on the Queensland senator’s social media, was defamatory and deceptively used Irwin’s image.

In the two-minute video, titled The State of Queensland, cartoon depictions of Irwin, the son of wildlife icon Steve, and Bluey, the beloved dog of the eponymous children’s show, are used to sarcastically critique alleged issues in the state – such as youth crime, wait times for hospital care and poor roads.

Earlier this month, Irwin and Bluey were announced as the faces of a $9.2 million state government tourism campaign. The One Nation cartoon ridicules this partnership, with an animated parody of Irwin telling viewers in the video’s opening moments: “The Queensland government has given us a disgusting amount of money to show you the state of Queensland...”

Here's the original promo


and Pauline's satirical cartoon for context;



I'll say it again. I don't like Pauline. I don't like her politics. But this is satire. Take the hit, Rob. Punch back in kind instead!

Oh, and yes. I do remember this;

Hanson wins Pantsdown song case

Hanson wins Pantsdown song case

PAULINE HANSON, the populist Australian politician, interrupted her campaign for Saturday's general election yesterday to go to court to try to get a song about her banned. Outside the court she was confronted by Pauline Pantsdown, the song's creator, who has achieved almost as much notoriety as...

www.independent.co.uk

28 September 1998

PAULINE HANSON, the populist Australian politician, interrupted her campaign for Saturday's general election yesterday to go to court to try to get a song about her banned. Outside the court she was confronted by Pauline Pantsdown, the song's creator, who has achieved almost as much notoriety as Mrs Hanson.

Before the election campaign, Pauline Pantsdown was Simon Hunt, a lecturer in sound and film at the College of Fine Arts in Sydney. He was so affronted by Mrs Hanson's attacks on Asian immigration and welfare spending on Aborigines that he decided to take her on.

His technique was satire, his ammunition Mrs Hanson's own words. Using her statements and some literary licence, he created a song called "I'm a Backdoor Man". It quickly became the most requested song on JJJ, the youth network of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

Mrs Hanson, leader of the One Nation party, did not like it. She took out an injunction to stop the ABC playing it. Yesterday the Supreme Court in Brisbane dismissed the ABC's appeal.

Mr Hunt was not deterred by the original injunction. With advice from Owen Trembath, a Sydney showbusiness lawyer, he put together another song, called "I Don't Like It".

It was released in late August and has since topped the charts, becoming something of a cult hit.

Mr Hunt performed the song as Pauline Pantsdown, a drag version of Mrs Hanson, to which he has changed his name by deed poll. He was legally obliged to do so because he is standing as Ms Pantsdown in the election for the Senate, the upper house of the federal parliament.

"I Don't Like It" has received no legal threats from Mrs Hanson. Its lyrics are all her words, although not always in the order she spoke them, and in her own voice, set to a pop beat. With a disclaimer on the CD's cover that the use of Pauline Hanson's voice is unauthorised, the song begins: "I don't like it when you turn my voice about. I don't like it, when you vote One Nation out. My language has been murdered, my shopping trolley murdered, my groceries just gone." She goes on: "Please explain, why can't my blood be coloured white? Coloured blood, it's just not right." And she ends: "I don't like anything, I can't do anything about it. No, the whole thing is wrong and it stinks and I don't like it..."

And here's the song for context;



Maybe Robert should save his legal fees and employ Pantsdown for a bit of payback?

 

[rank and file]

Dickhead Queenslanders doing dickhead Queensland things.

 

[Gethelred]

I don't like Pauline Hanson. I don't vote One Nation. But I'm struggling to see how Robert Irwin's going to prevail against the concept of satire if he actually goes for a defamation lawsuit against her.



Here's the original promo


and Pauline's satirical cartoon for context;



I'll say it again. I don't like Pauline. I don't like her politics. But this is satire. Take the hit, Rob. Punch back in kind instead!

Oh, and yes. I do remember this;


And here's the song for context;



Maybe Robert should save his legal fees and employ Pantsdown for a bit of payback?

Can he sue because it's not very good?

 

[CM86]

I don't like Pauline Hanson. I don't vote One Nation. But I'm struggling to see how Robert Irwin's going to prevail against the concept of satire if he actually goes for a defamation lawsuit against her.



Here's the original promo


and Pauline's satirical cartoon for context;



I'll say it again. I don't like Pauline. I don't like her politics. But this is satire. Take the hit, Rob. Punch back in kind instead!

Oh, and yes. I do remember this;


And here's the song for context;



Maybe Robert should save his legal fees and employ Pantsdown for a bit of payback?

I think it's ridiculous how many caveats you needed to include in this, just to make a good point.

Progressives, myself heavily included, are to blame for a lot of it. Having spent so much time calling out implications rather than engaging with points.

 

[Gethelred]

Out of interest, this link provides the following when it comes to defamation law in QLD:

To bring a successful claim for defamation, a person must prove:

1. Material was published;
2. An ordinary person would consider the published material to be defamatory;
3. The publication of the material caused serious harm to the person’s reputation;
4. The person claiming defamation can be identified in the published material;
5. There is no legal defence for the publication of the defamatory material.

... with the following comprising the possible defenses:

There is a range of defences available to a claim for defamation. These include:

• justification under section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 – the imputations in the published material are substantially true;
• contextual truth under section 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 – the published material contains defamatory imputations, some true and some not, but the untrue imputations do no further harm to the person’s reputation than the true imputations;
• absolute privilege under section 27 of the Defamation Act 2005 – the publication was made in parliament or a court or tribunal;
• public documents under section 28 of the Defamation Act 2005 – the material was published in a public document, such as a court judgment, or published honestly to inform the public;
• fair reporting on proceedings of public concern under section 29 of the Defamation Act 2005 – the published material was contained in a public proceeding such as in a court or local government meeting;
• qualified privilege under section 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 – the published material was given to someone who has an interest in having that information on a particular subject, the material was published in the provision of the information, and the publisher’s conduct was reasonable in the circumstances (for example, the giving of information to a police officer investigating a crime);
• scientific or academic peer review under section 30A of the Defamation Act 2005 – the material was published in a scientific or academic journal and the material was subject to an independent review of its scientific or academic merit by an expert on the subject;
• honest opinion under section 31 of the Defamation Act 2005 – the publication was an opinion about an issue of public interest and was based on material which is substantially true;
• innocent dissemination under section 32 of the Defamation Act 2005 – the publisher was acting for another person and did not know the material was defamatory.

At no point in the listed defenses is there a hard rule concerning parody rendering one exempt. This also does not allow for a free pass due to parody that I could see in a quick skim.

The problem for Irwin as I see it - from my position as armchair lawyer - is that it's difficult on the basis of the content itself to contend that he, Robert Irwin, has been damaged by this. It makes him look a little bit silly, but there's no real material within this video that is even targeted at him beyond the government offering him money. If he can't demonstrate that he has been damaged, he cannot sue.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The problem for Irwin as I see it - from my position as armchair lawyer - is that it's difficult on the basis of the content itself to contend that he, Robert Irwin, has been damaged by this. It makes him look a little bit silly, but there's no real material within this video that is even targeted at him beyond the government offering him money. If he can't demonstrate that he has been damaged, he cannot sue.

Good info on defamation in Qld. And as for stuff making him look silly and damaging his reputation, wasn't he co-hosting the last lot of I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here? That stuff would have been far more damaging to his character!

EDIT: That artslaw.com.au site you linked also has this to say;

The Parody and Satire Defence: Our Take - Arts Law Centre of Australia

Our thoughts on the law of fair dealing for the purpose of parody or satire as a defence to copyright infringement.

www.artslaw.com.au

 

[Festerz]

What goes around comes around.

Hanson wins Pantsdown song case

PAULINE HANSON, the populist Australian politician, interrupted her campaign for Saturday's general election yesterday to go to court to try to get a song about her banned. Outside the court she was confronted by Pauline Pantsdown, the song's creator, who has achieved almost as much notoriety as...

www.independent.co.uk

 

[campbell]

I wonder if the Bluey team will sic Pauline.

Bluey is a mega world wide program.

 

[Carn The Berries]

I wonder if the Bluey team will sic Pauline.

Bluey is a mega world wide program.

Bobby might be still steaming from the Twisties backlash I suspect... Just let it roll mate...

 

[Cookie]

Going to send this to the young fella.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

 

[the_interloper]

Getting into dangerous areas with the producer saying his dad would have seen the funny side of it, but yes lighten up overall Bob.

 

[Gough]

I'd say Pauline is suffering from relevance deficit disorder and Irwin is playing into her hands there but can anyone blame him? Who'd want their name and image associated with anything at all One Nation related?

 

[Carn The Berries]

I'd say Pauline is suffering from relevance deficit disorder and Irwin is playing into her hands there but can anyone blame him? Who'd want their name and image associated with anything at all One Nation related?

How many people would have seen it if he hadn't kicked up a stink? This is the issue with a lot of "defamation" cases. Those who bring them simply shine more attention on it than would have occurred if they just took it on the chin and moved on.

 

[Jane Doe]

I thought it was quite amusing. Lets face it he is only famous because of his dad.

 

[HairyO]

Out of interest, this link provides the following when it comes to defamation law in QLD:

... with the following comprising the possible defenses:

At no point in the listed defenses is there a hard rule concerning parody rendering one exempt. This also does not allow for a free pass due to parody that I could see in a quick skim.

The problem for Irwin as I see it - from my position as armchair lawyer - is that it's difficult on the basis of the content itself to contend that he, Robert Irwin, has been damaged by this. It makes him look a little bit silly, but there's no real material within this video that is even targeted at him beyond the government offering him money. If he can't demonstrate that he has been damaged, he cannot sue.

Also our High Court found an implied protection for political speech. Its not actually written anywhere, but they found it anyway.

 

[NSWCROW]

Getting into dangerous areas with the producer saying his dad would have seen the funny side of it

good way to get your ****en head smacked in, that

 

[Gethelred]

I thought it was quite amusing. Lets face it he is only famous because of his dad.

... I mean, there's a fair few in that particular boat.

 

[campbell]

... I mean, there's a fair few in that particular boat.

I dont understand though, just cause you are only famous because of your Dad, seems to be open slather on ridiculing you, and using you name and image without consent.


No common decency , let alone understanding of right or wrong by Pauline.

She is irrelevant and cant handle that.

 

[Carn The Berries]

I dont understand though, just cause you are only famous because of your Dad, seems to be open slather on ridiculing you, and using you name and image without consent.


No common decency , let alone understanding of right or wrong by Pauline.

She is irrelevant and cant handle that.

It's not like he's been backward it being forward recently. If he'd just kept his Australia Zoo gig the target on his back would be non-existent.

 

[Seeds]

I don't like Pauline Hanson. I don't vote One Nation. But I'm struggling to see how Robert Irwin's going to prevail against the concept of satire if he actually goes for a defamation lawsuit against her.



Here's the original promo


and Pauline's satirical cartoon for context;



I'll say it again. I don't like Pauline. I don't like her politics. But this is satire. Take the hit, Rob. Punch back in kind instead!

Oh, and yes. I do remember this;


And here's the song for context;



Maybe Robert should save his legal fees and employ Pantsdown for a bit of payback?

Exactly. How would south park go if you couldnt satirise celebrities.