Peter Dutton leads charge against slanderous trolls

Peter Dutton is pursuing justice by asking people who attack him behind a cloak of anonymity on social media or in public to defend their claims in court. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Dan Peled

One of the most exercised vices of the information age is the tendency to gossip and mistake it for truth. The online environment is a slanderer’s dream. Until recently, big tech oligarchs have used free speech to build social media empires without upholding the duty of traditional publishers to stop defamatory content. Anonymity has given trolls free rein to defame without incurring financial penalty or reputational risk. But the victims of slander on social media are fighting back.

Government ministers have united to stand against defamation by preparing legal reform and challenging those they believe have maligned their characters online. Last week, Defence Minister Peter Dutton took action to prevent others suffering the abuse he has endured at the hands of Twitter trolls. People reported receiving letters from his legal representatives. Speaking to 2GB’s Ray Hadley, Dutton said media companies should be regulated in the same way, irrespective of whether they are traditional print publishers or social media outlets.

Dutton tolerated his abusers for many years, but after Greens senator Larissa Waters dubbed him an “inhuman, sexist rape apologist” on Twitter, he appeared to reach his limit. Waters reportedly received legal correspondence and subsequently issued an apology for making “false and defamatory statements that Peter Dutton is a rape apologist, that he has sought to conceal and dismiss reports of rape … has no sympathy for victims of rape”. Importantly, the Greens MP accepted: “There was no basis for those allegations and that they were false.”

Another Australian frequently subjected to slander found some relief last week. Alice Springs deputy mayor and Indigenous anti-violence campaigner Jacinta Price settled a defamation case against the ABC. The public broadcaster had aired multiple radio segments where Price was accused of spreading racist vitriol and hate speech. Radio presenter Fiona Poole read an apology on air. The ABC conceded it had broadcast views about Price that were “false and defamatory”.

The ABC is embroiled in a separate defamation drama over its reporting of a historical rape allegation against Attorney-General Christian Porter that was made by a woman suffering serious mental illness who withdrew her police complaint before tragically committing suicide. Porter strongly denied the allegations and stood down from his role to pursue defamation proceedings in an effort to test the truthfulness of claims made by the ABC.

For Porter and Dutton, the battle is just beginning. Dutton is pursuing justice by asking people who attack him behind a cloak of anonymity on social media or in public to defend their claims in court. Presumably, they have little to fear if they have been truthful. If, on the other hand, they have traded in false accusations and malicious character attacks without sufficient evidence, they will be brought to justice. Either way, the truth will out, and the just will be vindicated.

Democracy is a grand political and social experiment. In its infancy, some believed it would threaten the social order by liberating the uneducated and vulgar. In the 21st century, however, the debasement of democracy is celebrated by highly educated people in politics, the media and academia. It is among the chattering classes that you find slander wielded as proof of virtue. It is a bonding mechanism that identifies members of the tribe by their repudiation of a common enemy. Subjecting public figures to false accusations is justified by appeal to in-group morality. Consider comments allowed on Larissa Waters’ Twitter feed after she posted the apology about defaming Dutton. A tweet under the anonymous name Asymetrical (sic) read: “We’re all thinking that he’s a rape apologist.” Another listed under the name Shane Bazzi that was retweeted by #@skyyharrington read: “Peter Dutton is a rape apologist. He is also a fascist who abuses women, men and children … ”

The government has had its own problems with LNP MP Andrew Laming. He is being investigated by the Australian Electoral Commission for secretly operating Facebook pages without proper authorisation. According to Guardian Australia, the content was political.

On Reddit, Christian Porter was the subject of gross abuse. An anonymous member wrote: “This guy is such a c***. Can’t believe he actually expects us to believe that … allegations regarding him being a sex creep … are all made up.” Another questioned whether Porter’s accuser had committed suicide and suggested a conspiracy: “It seems plausible that his allies did away with her in exchange for primo blackmail material.”

In Guardian Australia, Dutton’s pursuit of defamation claims was described as aggressive. The paper cited the opinion of Michael Bradley, managing partner of Marque Lawyers. His firm had been contacted by a man reportedly asked to take down a tweet that described Dutton as a rape apologist. Bradley said the man was “an unemployed dude” and questioned why the Defence Minister would pursue such claims by “randoms on Twitter”. On its website, Marque Lawyers lists the Greens party as one of its clients. In response to a call for Christians to become more politically visible, Marque Lawyers tweeted: “Um we have a Prime Minister who believes in the Rapture, if Christianity was any more visible we’d be bringing back the Inquisition.”

The anonymous nature of the online environment means people can attack, malign and defame others with impunity. If nothing else, legal action to stop slander and defamation online could make people engaged in the dark art of destroying reputations more publicly visible and accountable. It might serve to remind that the rules of engagement in public were designed to defend the soul of democracy.