Hardy pays $13,000 to settle defamation case

ByMichelle Griffin
December 27, 2011 — 3.00am
THE prominent columnist and author Marieke Hardy is believed to have paid about $13,000 in a
confidential legal settlement over an online shaming campaign.

Last Friday night, Ms Hardy posted a retraction on her blog after erroneously identifying Joshua Meggitt,
of Melbourne, as the author of a hate blog dedicated to her.

Apologetic ... writer and critic Marieke Hardy. CREDIT:DAMIAN BENNETT

''I accept that Joshua is not the writer and I sincerely apologise to him and his family for any upset
caused,'' she wrote, linking to her site from Twitter with the one-word post ''apology''.

Her original post, which was removed a few hours after it was published on November 9, accused Mr
Meggitt of harassing her in a series of "ranting, violent" passages online. Her ''name and shame'' post was
widely reported in Australia and internationally after she posted a link on Twitter in response to the
''#mencallmethings'' campaign, in which female columnists re-posted the nastiest responses they had
received online.

Ms Hardy could not be reached for comment and Mr Meggitt only said: ''I'm glad this mess is finally over.''
His lawyer, Stuart Gibson, did not rule out pursuing retractions from other websites.

Mr Meggitt did write a post in June (since removed) on his own blog that was critical of Ms Hardy and
other panellists on the ABC TV show First Tuesday Book Club. This attracted an anonymous comment
similar in language and vehemence to the hate blog, which is written under the pseudonym James
Vincent McKenzie. The hate blog was deleted in November but has since reappeared.
Ms Hardy's settlement comes at the end of a busy year for legal cases against blogs. The News Limited
columnist Andrew Bolt was found guilty of racially vilifying nine Aborigines on his blog and in his
newspaper columns. The American Idol finalist Jason Castro sued a Melbourne woman who created a hate
blog. Police shut down a website dedicated to defaming the Brisbane restaurant Cha Cha Char.
There has been a resurgence in internet lawsuits, Mr Gibson said.

''Many of the blog publishers are widely read, more than one can imagine, and a lot of them don't have
the resources to get properly legalled, even though they have decent followings.''

Twitter contributes, he said, as ''it can amplify their own audience multiple times''.
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/hardy-pays-13000-to-settle-defamation-case-20111226-1paic.html
All,

Disclaimer – None of the case options are intended to offend or trigger any past experiences you may have had.
Two of the subjects represented in these options might be sensitive to some. One involves the topic of pedophilia
and the other is in regards to media coverage of a school shooting. If you’re sensitive to either of these subjects,
please let me know and skip reviewing these options. They were selected because they are current cases regarding
Defamation and are connected to what we do in Media Production. In one case, “investigative reporting” and
“humor” is part of the case. The other case involves a popular media personality with a podcast show that has been
described as a “conspiracy theory” type of podcast. These represent possible opportunities and jobs for our
students to be involved in before or after graduation. The following are our case options for the Defamation Case,
our first simulated court case in this class:

1) Brian Burke vs. Blogger Zack Bradley (and 17 others)

Internet defamation legal battle initiated by notorious NHL GM, Brian Burke. The former Toronto Maple Leafs
executive is suing over insinuations that he and Sportsnet anchor, Hazel Mae, had an affair. An affair that allegedly
produced an heir. There are no official court briefs available (at least at the time of this email), but here is some
background on the case: http://kellywarnerlaw.com/internet-defamation-burke-bloggers/

2) Roy Moore vs. Sasha Baron Cohen, Showtime and CBS (WARNING: Sensitive subject matter.)
https://www.scribd.com/document/387909143/Roy-Moore-Showtime#download (Requires sign in with
Facebook, Google or individually to read/download complaint.)

3) Where's the Beef? Beef Products, Inc vs. Diane Sawyer Yes, THAT Diane Sawyer from ABS news. Yes, THAT beef
product company that had pictures go viral on the Internet claiming that it's beef processing plants produced “pink
slime.” How could Diane Sawyer pass up an opportunity to report on this story? Well, she couldn't and did.
Although this case has already concluded, we can have a re-trial, of sorts and start from scratch…Here is a brief of
the case: http://news.msn.com/us/pink-slime-suit-could-become-high-stakes-defamation-case

4) Finkel vs. Facebook http://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-02-16-Finkel%20Complaint.pdf

Teenager Denise Finkel sued four of her former high school classmates, their parents, and Facebook after the
students created a private Facebook group called "90 Cents Short of a Dollar," which allegedly contained false and
defamatory statements about her.
The complaint was one of the first to suggest that Facebook should be held liable for publishing the defamatory
matter, explaining that it "should have known that such statements were false and/or have taken steps to verify
the genuineness" of the statements.
The complaint also alleges that the students' parents are liable for negligently failing to supervise their children.
This is not a new allegation in such lawsuits.

5) Mark Andes and Dennis Carmassi vs. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation

Former members of the band Heart, Mark Andes and Dennis Carmassi, sued the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
Foundation in Pennsylvania state court Tuesday for only inducting Heart's original lineup from the 1970s but not
the additional 1980s members.
Andes and Carmassi claim that although Heart's most public members, Ann and Nancy Wilson, asked the
foundation to correct its mistake and include the two members in the 2013 induction, it refused without giving a
reason. The Hall of Fame, however, proceeded to use images and videos of Andes and Carmassi and the songs they
performed to promote Heart’s induction, the pair say.

When their fans around the world congratulated the two after seeing their images and songs used by the Hall of
Fame, Andes and Carmassi say they were humiliated by having to inform their fans and peers that they were
inexplicably not chosen for induction… http://www.law360.com/articles/538501/2-heart-members-accuse-hall-
of-fame-of-defaming-them

6)Sandy Hook Families versus Alex Jones (WARNING: Sensitive subject matter.)

https://www.scribd.com/document/379986309/6-Sandy-Hook-Families-FBI-Agent-Sue-Alex-Jones-For-
Defamation#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=38395X1559799X17bdd84552a7296570d41fc3081d
274a&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate

(Requires sign in with Facebook, Google or individually to read/download complaint.)

To vote, reply to this email with your choice from the options above. Please vote for your top choice by Thursday,
9/13, before class. Also, let me know if your team has a preference on the role of Jury, Prosecution or Defense for
this first case. The choice and roles will be determined in class next week.

--Chris