Yeah I'm a paid up member. The issue here is that defamation law is not really crystal clear like the laws of physics. It's heavily influenced by emotional and cultural factors which are ever changing which is embodied in what they call "case-law". If some set of criteria was determined to be defamatory by a court of law in the past, it exerts an influence on the future. It's ridiculous, because it allows shifting fashions to dictate what is true. And this gets heavily influenced by lobbies who loudly complain when they feel defamed or vilified. So, it;s really not rational. Thus, people can hook into this mechanism and exploit it to their benefit. Those who go down this path actually benefit from fixated individuals who may be motivated by religious fanaticism or revenge to claim they are being targeted or defamed and in a system which allows the award of monetary damages they may actually benefit financially. 

In my opinion the only way to deal with this is by coldly detaching from all such fixated indiviuals and pursue only legal arguments, avoiding inflaming litigation by linking to content which has already been judged defamatory and avoiding such obvious traps as posting photos of individuals or doxxing.

Dear Winston, 

While there's undoubtdly a kernel of truth in what you're saying, I feel it's a copout. 

It does not address the the purpose of citizen journalism,  which is investigate such examples of institutional corruption and then speak out against it with the courage of one's convictions, utilizing society's precious gift of free speech. 

In this case,  we are reporting the corruption of the Australian civil law institutions bought about by identity politics.

This system of law is being exploited by activists working hand-in-hand with the QANGOs that are set up, in the first instance, to enforce anti-discrimination law and civil defamation law, to protect certain minority groups that are deemed to be oppressed by the mainstream culture.  

These specific institutions in Australia - to which I'm referring here - are the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board and the Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Commission.   These bodies then refer vexatious and frivolous complaints by 'social justice activists' to tribunals for external judgment.  It becomes lawyers picnic. 

Literally millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers money has gone into the pockets of lawyers aiding the complainant or plaintiff,  or defending the respondent or defendant.  It's a racket.  Your approach is to ban reporting of it,  for fear of getting caught up in the litigation yourself. 

This of course is your right and it is presumably based on pragmatism as opposed to principles 

Once you're hit with a complaint by these activists - who are fighting for the collective rights of certain minority groups -  you get caught up in this lawfare. 

As I stated in the above Substack reporting, 

It’s a futile activity to try and stop people bullshitting on Twitter, by means of lawfare.

That is, unless the purpose of the lawfare is

(i) to make caselaw, and/or

(ii) to make money.

In the case we’re looking at here, we say both (i) and (ii) are the motivations of both the plaintiff and the judiciary.

Fifth Estate Press I understood was about citizen journalism, yet the platform has taken down my story on this judicial corruption & vexatious litigation,  for no other reason than fear of getting caught up in it. 

What this means is that Fifth Estate Press can no longer be considered a reliable platform to expose judicial corruption in Australia.

That's OK and the policy to ban my story was probably based on a certain amount of wisdom encapsulated in the Serenity Prayer. 

If you believe Fifth Estate Press cannot change social reality through citizen journalism, then it makes sense to accept what you cannot change.   This comes from a sense of realism.   

Why risk exposing the platform to litigation when it will only result in loss and harm to yourself, but change nothing?   

That's your wise choice.  It errs on the side of caution.

On the other hand it takes courage to change what you believe you can change. 

My approach in the Fifth Estate Press story AUSTRALIA vs X (Part 2) - that you took down as owner of the patform - was to effect social change through the mechanism of exposure.  

 It is no problem, for there are other platforms, bigger platforms, on which I can post my story.

In this case, Fifth Estate Press's loss is Substack's gain.  Especially if the story goes viral. 

https://open.substack.com/pub/gas4gaza/p/australia…


--ooOoo--
 

Yes & the caselaw for defamation and vilification under a variety of new statutes shows that it's not just Big Tech which is the problem - it's an atmosphere of oppression created by all these laws.

This woman & mother-of-three Katie Hopkins is a breath of fresh air!  Thanks for sharing here. Her 'woke' enemies preface her name with 'hate peddler'

Yeah there is a specific situation which triggered this post which derives from a story posted a few days ago about the anti-discrimination legislation in NSW.

There are certain protected groups in Australia who are extremely litigious and who exploit existing legislation as a political weapon against their enemies - that is the thrust of that story. Such people are reprehensible, and it provokes others to attack them and make imputations which are defamatory. It's a vicious circle. I'm not against exposing facts with clear evidence but making casual accusations that person X is a pedophile, for example, opens the possibility of defamation lawsuits.

Luckily the people aware of this site and likely to join are the Truther crowd and thus unlikely to get butthurt by the truth.

I have just read this disclaimer by operators of this platform.   Yes, defamation is a tricky subject.  There shouldn't be any prohibition on public statements that are truthful.   It's one thing to believe your dirt on some adversary is the truth, but an entirely different matter if what you believe to be the truth is in fact not the truth.   It is understandable that the creators & operators of this platform are scared of being sued for defamation.   

https://youtu.be/ImL2rAcP0PA