Crikey v Murdoch: Lachlan Murdoch owns boats worth more than Crikey

[keith]

I'ma start a new thread for this Australian case, because it doesn't really belong anywhere else that I can figure out. If'n y'all have a better idear, then by all means move it.

Explained: The Crikey v Murdoch Media court battle

Recent changes to defamation laws get a test run in Crikey v Murdoch

From July 2021, a number of changes to defamation laws have come into effect across Australia, with the exception of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Since the changes are so new, many recent defamation trials have not been subject to the amendments...

One of the new requirements for those alleging defamation is that proof of serious or impending serious harm. So, for the purposes of the Crikey v Murdoch case, the question will be asked: has Lachlan Murdoch suffered serious harm because of the Crikey piece?

What was the catalyst?

On June 29 2022, Crikey published an article titled “Trump is a confirmed unhinged traitor. And Murdoch is his unindicted co-conspirator”. Lachlan Murdoch, the CEO of Fox demanded an apology, threatening legal action if the publisher of Crikey, Private Media did not publicly apologise. Crikey’s response to the threat was a full-page ad in the New York Times inviting Murdoch to sue the publication.

To this, Murdoch, co-chair of News Corp did not take kindly, swiftly launching a defamation suit against Crikey’s Australian publisher Private Media.

[keith]

Murdoch v Crikey: How a mere 804 words became a test case that could run into the millions

MURDOCH v CRIKEY

• Lachlan Murdoch filed defamation proceedings against online news outlet Crikey in the Federal Court on Tuesday.
• His lawyers allege an article published on June 29, which was deleted before being republished on August 15, defamed him by naming his family as “unindicted co-conspirators” of former US president Donald Trump following the deadly US Capitol riots in January 2021.
• Crikey, which has yet to file a defence, is expected to argue the article does not convey the defamatory meanings alleged by Murdoch. It is also likely to seek to rely on a new public interest defence.
• While there have been calls in recent days for the Federal Court to have jury trials in defamation cases, it already has this power. However, its judges have made clear the circumstances in which a jury will be ordered in a defamation trial are limited.
• A jury trial may be ordered by the Federal Court in a case in which “community standards” might bear upon the issue of whether a particular statement is defamatory.

Crikey has started up a subscription drive, targeted ad campaign and a fundraiser for its legal bills – which could blow out if Murdoch wins in court and gets aggravated damages awarded. At time of writing, the GoFundMe had raised $285,065 since its Friday launch, with some pretty big names stumping up.

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd, a vocal opponent of News Corp, and chair of Australians for a Murdoch Royal Commission, has dropped $5000, while ex-New England MP and key supporter of Labor’s minority government Tony Windsor coughed up $1000.

But Rudd’s fellow ex-PM and News Corp critic Malcolm Turnbull, wasn’t going to be outdone – on Sunday, he matched Kevin 07’s $5000 donation.

[keith]

Murdoch loses bid to throw out part of Crikey’s defamation defence

Online news outlet Crikey has had a preliminary win in its defamation fight with Lachlan Murdoch, after a judge rejected Murdoch’s application to throw out part of the media outlet’s public interest defence before the trial.

In a decision in the Federal Court in Sydney on Friday, Justice Michael Wigney said he was “not persuaded it’s appropriate to strike out any paragraph of Crikey’s defence” before the trial.
...
Crikey is seeking to rely in part on a new public interest defence that has not yet been tested in Australia. The new defence started last year in NSW, where the trial will be held.

Under the defence, Crikey’s publisher Private Media – chaired by Eric Beecher – must prove the “defamatory matter” concerned an issue of public interest and it “reasonably believed ... the publication of the matter was in the public interest”.

Murdoch sought to have the first 16 paragraphs of Crikey’s defence, presented under the heading “factual background”, struck out or used for a limited purpose.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Velly interesting.

[Suranis]

This lawsuit pretty much proves that Lachlan is far more of a gormless twit than his Father. His father never bothered doing lawsuits for defamation, and one significant reason is that it would just give publicity and legitimacy to the accusations. Another being that he would not have time to do all the lawsuits when there is only 24 hours in a day and people say mean things about Rupert all the time.

Lachlan however is far less able than his father and might have run right into a hole with this that he cant climb out of.

[keith]

This lawsuit pretty much proves that Lachlan is far more of a gormless twit than his Father. His father never bothered doing lawsuits for defamation, and one significant reason is that it would just give publicity and legitimacy to the accusations. Another being that he would not have time to do all the lawsuits when there is only 24 hours in a day and people say mean things about Rupert all the time.

Lachlan however is far less able than his father and might have ru right into a hole with this that he cant climb out of.

And yet another reason for Rupert's reticence to sue is that he and his father Keith constantly trod the line of defamation themselves.

[jcolvin2]

Given that the average billionaire's yacht is worth tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars/euros, the thread title ("Crikey v Murdoch: Lachlan Murdoch owns boats worth more than Crikey") does not tell us much. May I suggest, "Crikey v Murdoch: Lachlan Murdoch probably owns BOOTS worth more than Crikey."

[keith]

I agree its week snark, but it was the best I could come up with. Its from a headline on an arficle I can't find now.

Edit: it's a quote by ex-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull when he donated to the Crikey gofundme campaign.

Crikey claims to be worth maybe 20mil (AUD)

[keith]

A detailed summary for American readers...

Vanity Fair: I THINK LACHLAN’S TRYING TO PETER THIEL CRIKEY”: INSIDE A SCRAPPY AUSTRALIAN NEWS SITE’S WAR WITH THE MURDOCHS