“I have found that the first imputation relating to the primary tweet being that ‘Mr Greenwich engages in disgusting sexual activities’ was conveyed,” O’Callaghan said.
I still don't see how this qualifies as defamation, since it is factually correct? It would seem that the judgement revolves around the use of coarse words like "arse", "dick" and "shit" in connection with the word "disgusting". Had Latham used anatomically correct words this case may have been thrown out.
It looks as if the "truth defence" against defamation fails if the perpetrator uses foul language which imputes something negative about the plaintiff. It seems like a very murky definition. This further highlights that Australia has become an unsafe country for those who value free speech. There are booby traps waiting for you everywhere.
Mark Latham is a Trump and anti establishment anti-woke character in Australian politics. And just as the judiciary in the USA made Trump into a felon, so it is in Australia
This is why the LGBTQ establishment got him:-
https://5ep.net/stories/lgbt-activism-has-lead-to-…
PS man-made laws can be interpreted every which way. At the end of the day, it is hoped that justice will prevail.
Is it fair that Mark Latham pay the gay activist Greenwich $140,000 for a justified Aussie ‘pub-talk’ ‘come-back’ (to use the vernacular) to the insulting tweet from Greenwich who called Latham a ‘disgusting individual’? Of course not.
Is it fair that Monica Smit pay $200,000 court costs when she all but won?
What I don’t understand is why Latham did not sue Greenwich for defamation in the first place.
The other thing that puzzles me is the fleeting nature of Mark Latham’s tweet. It only existed for 3 hours before Latham took it down. This raises the interesting legal question about duration of a “publication”. If Latham took down his impulsive Aussie-larrikin style tweet after say 10 minutes, but somebody had time to get a screenshot and re-publish it, would Latham be legally liable to the provocateur Greenwich?
To use Latham’s words, it would become a “lawyer’s picnic” (ref his 27 February 2020 speech in the NSW Legislative Council)
The irony is that Mark Latham is a democratically elected law-maker, and he tried to set up a committee in the Legislative Council to ban this sort of vexations lawfare instigated by gay activists fully backed by the LGBTQ establishment. He has been hoisted on his own petard to use the old expression.
Mark grew up in a different era. Do you realize that sodomy was only decriminalized in NSW in 1984?
The NSW premier Chris Minns is about to make a public apology to the “LGBTQ community” for those “discriminatory laws”
So it was in this political climate that Mark Latham was made an example of.
These days there is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking your dick up another bloke’s arse and getting it covered in shit.
These days even the marriage (between 2 blokes) is consummated by sodomy.
In the West, human “sexuality” is ideologically and politically de-coupled from its procreative significance: marriage is no longer about the raising of children, and parents of children are losing their rights to influence their children, as evidenced by Victoria’s new laws making “gender affirmation” mandatory or face jail.
Putin understands what is going on in the West and he won’t have a bar of it in Russia.
putin speech on ukraine 24feb2022
Excerpt from Vladimir Putin's address to the Russian people on Ukraine, February 24, 2022. At the end of this short extract of his address, he says: "Properly speaking, the attempts to use us in their own interests never ceased until quite recently: they sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature. This is not going to happen. No one has ever succeeded in doing this, nor will they succeed now."
gas4gaza
In a similar vein, N Rey and A Roy were just condemned for defamation without any real (legal) substantiation. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2024/09/1…
PS If BM and her brother are one and the same then maybe they have the same bank account (to collect the damages) lol
Link
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2024/09/12/brigitte-macron-awarded-damages-from-women-who-spread-false-claim-she-is-transgender_6725808_7.html
Greenwich v Latham: Online File
Federal Court of AustraliaI asked AI:
Q: Did Australian Mark Latham appeal the judge's decision on the defamation case from 2023?"
A: "As of now, there is no public information indicating that Mark Latham has appealed the judge’s decision in the defamation case brought against him by Alex Greenwich. The case concluded with Greenwich being awarded $140,000 in damages over a homophobic tweet posted by Latham in March 2023."
Or maybe the foul language per se is not the issue, but rather the imputation that anal sex is disgusting.
Would that equally apply to normal male/female sex? I really wish this case had been appealed so these arguments could have been thrashed out.