Defamatory meanings and the hazards of relying on the ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ fiction

© 2017, Pacific Media Centre, Auckland University of Technology. All rights reserved. Defamation law offers a remedy when the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed by something the defendant publishes. At the heart of the action lies the question—what do the words complained about actually mean? The proc...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Fernandez, Joseph
Format: Journal Article
Published: Pacific Media Centre, AUT 2017
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/56175
_version_ 1848759805793009664
author Fernandez, Joseph
author_facet Fernandez, Joseph
author_sort Fernandez, Joseph
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description © 2017, Pacific Media Centre, Auckland University of Technology. All rights reserved. Defamation law offers a remedy when the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed by something the defendant publishes. At the heart of the action lies the question—what do the words complained about actually mean? The process of determining defamatory meaning depends heavily on what the court finds to be the imputations conveyed by the matter concerned to ‘ordi­nary, reasonable people’. The process relies on assumption and conjecture, rather than on evidence. This article examines how this process applied in the Hockey v Fairfax Media case brought by Australia’s former Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey against Fairfax Media, which presented a paradox—the court described the journalists’ articles concerned in glowing terms but still found for the plaintiff.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T10:05:43Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-56175
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T10:05:43Z
publishDate 2017
publisher Pacific Media Centre, AUT
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-561752017-08-24T02:22:45Z Defamatory meanings and the hazards of relying on the ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ fiction Fernandez, Joseph © 2017, Pacific Media Centre, Auckland University of Technology. All rights reserved. Defamation law offers a remedy when the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed by something the defendant publishes. At the heart of the action lies the question—what do the words complained about actually mean? The process of determining defamatory meaning depends heavily on what the court finds to be the imputations conveyed by the matter concerned to ‘ordi­nary, reasonable people’. The process relies on assumption and conjecture, rather than on evidence. This article examines how this process applied in the Hockey v Fairfax Media case brought by Australia’s former Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey against Fairfax Media, which presented a paradox—the court described the journalists’ articles concerned in glowing terms but still found for the plaintiff. 2017 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/56175 Pacific Media Centre, AUT restricted
spellingShingle Fernandez, Joseph
Defamatory meanings and the hazards of relying on the ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ fiction
title Defamatory meanings and the hazards of relying on the ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ fiction
title_full Defamatory meanings and the hazards of relying on the ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ fiction
title_fullStr Defamatory meanings and the hazards of relying on the ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ fiction
title_full_unstemmed Defamatory meanings and the hazards of relying on the ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ fiction
title_short Defamatory meanings and the hazards of relying on the ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ fiction
title_sort defamatory meanings and the hazards of relying on the ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ fiction
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/56175