Comment on Investigative journalist friendlyjordies gets firebombed as a silencing tactic, police do nothing, eventually forcing them to take down their investigation.

• naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Aussie defo laws are fucked and conservative pollies sue people all the time.

  In this case the pollie admitted to pork barrelling (unfairly favouring electorates based on political expedience vs merit for projects) in Parliament. The defo case was about whether he pork barreled. Because he said it in Parliament where privilege applies his own words weren’t admissible as evidence in favour of shanks’ case.

  Just normal stuff.

  source

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Ah. Parliamentary privilege I think it’s called. They have that bullshit in the US and the UK afair, perhaps other places too.

    Really helps public trust when parliamentary debate is exempt from the rules that us commoners must abide by!

    source

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It makes sense for stuff like whistle blowing. you don’t exactly want fear of prosecution affecting someone presenting evidence of wrongdoing.

      But like, if reporting on how someone else described themselves in Parliament can get you sued because they can say “prove I said that” then that’s a bit chilling. Idk where the balance is, that’s something we all need to have a serious chat about, but it’s not here

      source

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It makes sense for stuff like whistle blowing. you don’t exactly want fear of prosecution affecting someone presenting evidence of wrongdoing

        Except whistle-blowers have specific protections already, so that doesn’t really apply.

        But like, if reporting on how someone else described themselves in Parliament can get you sued because they can say “prove I said that” then that’s a bit chilling

        To say the least!

        Idk where the balance is

        I do! Holding politicians accountable like everyone else. THAT’S the balance.

        The bar for proving defamation is already high enough that there’s no risk of accidentally chilling honest political speech.

        If you honestly believe it’s true, it can’t be defamation. Politicians would only get in trouble for wilfully false defamatory statements, which I’m 100% in favor of happening much more.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Sagifurius@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        That’s not normally how it works. A politician can’t get sued for something he says in parliament, but I’ve never heard of the record of what he said being inadmissible before.

        source

        • -> View More Comments