Barilaro’s $715k defamation win as Friendlyjordies and Google face potential criminal charges

Former NSW deputy premier John Barilaro says he is happy and emotional after Google was ordered to pay him a $715k defamation payout over YouTuber FriendlyJordies “racist” videos.

John Barilaro has spoken outside court after Google was ordered to pay him $715,000 in damages over “racist and vindictive” videos uploaded on YouTube by Jordan Shanks, also known as FriendlyJordies.

The court found Google uploaded multiple videos mocking the former NSW deputy premier’s Italian heritage and framed him as corrupt.

“It’s been a long journey, a long two years, I am emotional today,” Mr Barilaro told reporters in Sydney on Monday.

“To hear His Justice read out the reasoning and the evidence, and the case is a little bit traumatising, but I’m happy it’s the end of the journey.

“You’ve got to be a bit courageous or stupid to take on Google and maybe there’s a bit of both, but the reality is that it is unfair.”

Former NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro arriving at Federal Court, Sydney during the court case. Picture: James Gourley

Mr Barilaro said “the little guy out there” didn’t have the opportunity to defend their name in court.

“I had that opportunity but it has been traumatic,” he said.

Friendlyjordies' Jordan Shanks. Picture: Damian Shaw

“And if it wasn’t for (lawyers) Sue and Paul and my legal team that kept me in the race over this period over the last 18 months I don’t know whether I would be here today.

“But today I am just happy it has come to an end.”

Federal Court Justice Steven Rares, on Monday, held Google liable for racist and abusive videos posted by Youtuber Jordan Shanks, aka Friendlyjordies, which triggered a defamation lawsuit from former NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro.

Justice Rares also took the significant step of referring Google and Friendlyjordies to the Principal Registrar of the court which will now consider laying criminal contempt charges.

Jordan Shanks in the Friendlyjordies’ Bruz video. Picture: YouTube/Google

“Mr Shanks engaged in cyber-bullying in this campaign, trying to intimidate Mr Barilaro from exercising another important right of every citizen in our democracy, namely the right to bring proceedings in the courts,” Justice Rares said.

“Mr Shanks and Google, as the publisher of his attacks, attempted to bring improper pressure to bear on Mr Barilaro and his lawyers not to pursue this proceeding.”

Media lawyer, Justin Quill, who acts for The Daily Telegraph as well as tech companies as a partner at Thomson Geer, said the contempt recommendation is very serious.

“The possibility of contempt charges is very serious and has criminal ramifications, but it’s just being considered at this stage and it’s not a certainty that any charges will be laid,” he said.

“Whether charges are laid or how they’re defended will be really interesting and I can see some defences already that Google would want to run.”

Google has been ordered to pay Mr Barilaro $715,000 in damages, and that comes after Friendlyjordies was ordered to pay $100,000 to cover some of the former politician’s legal costs.

“$715,000 is a large sum, a disappointing result for free speech. It is likely to have somewhat of a chilling effect on free speech,” Mr Quill said.

“Defamation law is always about balancing free speech with rights to protect one’s reputation.”

The court has yet to conclude who should pay the legal bills, which are likely a combined $1 million for both sides.

The damages and legal costs may result in Google launching an appeal, Mr Quill said.

Tech companies have a legal defence, known as innocent dissemination, where they will not be held liable for defamatory posts if they take down offending material after becoming aware of it.

Google did not take the videos down.

Traditional media companies do not have the same defence, Mr Quill said, and the judgment against Google is unlikely to change any laws that appear to favour tech companies over traditional media in Australia.

Mr Quill warned regular Australians that they are considered “primary publishers” when they post defamatory things on social media and the courts could hold them accountable just like a newspaper editor.

“People need to remember that whether you’re Friendlyjordies or the average mum or dad you’re a publisher.

“The law of defamation in Australia really only protects the rich and famous – movie actors, celebrities, politicians – these are the ones usually availing themselves of defamation law in Australia.”

Justice Rares, in his judgment, highlighted a horrific threat made against Mr Barilaro’s family and wondered why tech companies, with their algorithms and safeguards, had not filtered it out.

He called for parliament to consider bringing in laws to prevent it in the future.

“The ability of social media entities to publish and enable the communication of such material without constraint is a matter that the Parliament ought to consider addressing,” the judge said.

GOOGLE ORDERED TO PAY BARILARO $715K

Google has been ordered to pay former NSW deputy premier John Barilaro $715,000 in aggravated damages after Federal Court Justice Steven Rares found the company profited from a ‘deeply offensive racist campaign’ by YouTube comedian Jordan Shanks, aka Friendlyjordies, in defamatory videos its platform.

Mr Barilaro sued the tech giant – which operates YouTube – along with YouTuber Jordan Shanks for videos titled Bruz and Secret Dictatorship published in 2020.

The former NSW deputy premier claimed various videos fronted by Jordan Shanks, also known as Friendlyjordies, were defamatory because they wrongly portrayed him as a corrupt conman who took bribes, perjured himself, blackmailed other elected officials and misused public funds including giving $3.3m to a beef company.

Jordan Shanks in the Friendlyjordies’ Bruz video. Picture: YouTube/Google

Mr Barilaro, who has since retired from politics, settled his case against Mr Shanks in November when the YouTuber provided an apology and edited the videos.

“Mr Barilaro, like most members of the community, believed that Google portrayed itself as a good corporate citizen, but it did nothing to stop the conduct on its YouTube platforms,” Justice Rares said in his judgment.

“It is necessary to award a substantial sum in damages to compensate Mr Barilaro for the harm that Google caused to him and to vindicate his reputation.”

He added that, “the ability of social media entities to publish and enable the communication of such material without constraint is a matter that the parliament ought to consider addressing.”

“Mr Barilaro was traumatised by Google’s and Mr Shanks’ campaign, and it caused him to leave public office prematurely.

“I found that Google did not apply its own policies, because it did nothing to prevent Mr Shanks’ hate speech, and harassment (at) Mr Barilaro.

“Google did not seek to explain or prove why it left Mr Shanks‘ many racist attacks on Mr Barilaro available on YouTube.”

Google has been contacted for comment.

Google initially defended the case, initially arguing a range of defences including qualified privilege and honest opinion, but dropped its remaining defence in March and said it would no longer claim the videos were in the public interest.

“We now have a situation where from December 2020 to 30 June 2021, publication is admitted by Google. It is now admitted that the imputations, all of them, are carried and defamatory. It is accepted there are no defences to that seven months, or six months, of publication,” Mr Bariloro’s lawyer Sue Chrysanthou said in March.

In March, Mr Barilaro wept in court and said the stress of the case and damage the videos caused left him “looking at the balcony” for a way to escape the pain.

“It’s not just the video, the video is one part of the abuse that has been constant,” Mr Barilaro said.

“I got disgusting, revolting messages … go kill yourself, you should be dead … you’re a person of sh*t, your daughter should be tied to a pole and raped in front of you and then we’ll kill you.

“That’s the stuff that comes off the back of these videos.”