The irony that in a story about lawfare and sexual misconduct we had to suppress the identity of someone allegedly responsible for both was not lost upon our readers. Defamation law has been used by those who can afford it as a shield against being accountable for their actions for years.

Elsewhere Crikey readers lament the erosion of privacy rights. 

 

On lawfare, #MeToo and the music industry

Robert Pullen writes: “Names have been changed to protect the identity of the people involved.” But also, let’s face it, to protect Crikey. The principle of open justice is systematically violated by defamation law, which operates largely in secret and always has since Sydney editors were jailed in the 1820s —  jailings long forgotten. The first secret that defamation law protects is its own, how it tears black holes in truth to the advantage of powerful, privileged pricks. Nobody knows the cost. Nobody is accountable even in the digital age. Can’t we do better than this?

BeenAround writes: You have touched on two legal social evils here. The first is the use of threats of defamation proceedings as a weapon to suppress what is often something like the truth. The second, although you do not mention it directly, is ubiquitous provision in insurance policies prohibiting the insured from making any admissions or concessions, even about patent liability. And that is the root of the majority of litigation. The plaintiff must commence proceedings to force some sort of resolution and the resolution will almost always be “without admission” which is often an unsatisfactory personal and social outcome.

 

On the growing inadequacy of privacy protections

Norm writes: An outrageous decision that mocks the very decision maker’s appointment. Especially when government departments are among the first scoundrels to hide behind the Privacy Act when they don’t want to reveal information. Is there any right of appeal? Yet further evidence, as if we needed it, what a terminally compromised and debauched crock of ordure our so-called privacy laws and commissioner have become. So rotten. Tear it all up, and start again.

Rais writes: Would a Bill of Rights help? It seems to be pretty useless in the United States where 2 and a half million or so of its citizens languish in jail at any one time with long, long sentences, often for non violent offences such as possessing small amounts of an illegal drug. And when — or if — they are eventually released, their voting rights are stripped from them.

 

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length. Please include your full name.