“I’d like to give the money to something Donald Trump hates,” Carroll, 80, told ABC News.  “If it will cause him pain for me to give money to certain things, that’s my intent.”

Dozens of women have accused the former US president of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment dating back to the 1970s. He has denied these accusations.

In May last year, Carroll won $5 million in damages from a civil case against Trump. 

The former Elle advice columnist alleged that Trump raped her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in 1995 or 1996 and then defamed her on his truth social platform in October 2022 by denying it happened and calling her a liar. 

Another $83 million in damages were awarded to Carroll on Friday after a jury took less than three hours to return a verdict that Trump should pay her the amount in damages to compensate for two defamatory statements he made against her in 2019. 

Speaking to the Times, Carroll said the win for her was a win for women everywhere, but especially in a post-Roe America. 

“This win, more than any other thing, when we needed it the most– after we lost the rights over our own bodies in many states– we put out our flag in the ground on this one. Women won this one. I think it bodes well for the future.”

Carroll has emphasised she wants to “do something good” with the money, noting it’s an “inspiring” amount of money.

During the two-week trial, Trump attended in-person, after his absence at last year’s trial. 

Describing what it was like to face him in court, Carroll has told reporters that she had fears leading up to it until looking at him sitting feet away and realising he was “nothing”.

“When you’ve actually faced the man, he’s just a man with no clothes on,” she told the Times, referencing the story of ‘the emperor with no clothes’. 

“It’s the people around him that are giving him the power,” she said.

At the end of proceedings, during closing statements from Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan, Trump muttered defamatory statements in earshot of the jury and walked out of the courtroom.

Kaplan said his behaviour only validated that Trump is “a bully who can’t follow the rules”.

Following the verdict and $83 million reward, Carroll said she saw the jurors and “it made me burst into tears because they met my eyes for the first time”. 

While it could be a while before Carroll sees the money, Kaplan says she’s confident they’ll be able to collect it.

“One way or the other, he owns a lot of real estate. It can be sold. We will collect the judgement,” Kaplan said.

The post E Jean Carroll suggests she will fund ‘something Trump hates’ after $83 million defamation ruling appeared first on Women's Agenda.

On Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers filed a counterclaim against Carroll in the Southern District of New York federal court, accusing the columnist of the “false statements” she made during an appearance on CNN cable news on May 10 where she alleged he raped her — an allegation he has consistently denied, and had called a “hoax”.

During the CNN appearance, Carroll responded to the jury’s findings that Trump did not rape her, saying, “Oh, yes, he did—oh, yes, he did.”

Trump has accused Carroll of acting with “actual malice and ill will with an intent to significantly and spitefully harm and attack” his reputation, and his lawyers are asking for a retraction, along with “compensatory and punitive damages.” 

Last month, the jury awarded Carroll $US5 million in damages in her civil case against Trump. In her testimony during the trial, Carroll accused Trump of raping her in a New York City department store in 1996, and then ruining her reputation by calling her a liar when she told her story in 2019.

Carroll filed her first lawsuit against Trump in November 2019. In that claim, she accused him of defaming her after he dismissed her rape allegation and claimed he didn’t know who she was. Last month, Carroll amended this appeal, seeking an additional $10m in damages for Trump’s denials during the CNN appearance the day after the verdict. 

Carroll filed a second lawsuit against Trump in 2022, after the state of New York passed a law allowing survivors of sexual violence a chance to file civil suits even if the statute of limitations on their claims had expired.

In this second lawsuit, she accused him of battery and defamation. 

When the jury found in favour of Carroll last month, she appeared on NBC News saying she was “overwhelmed with joy and happiness and delight for the women in this country.”

This week, allegations of further disturbing criminal behaviour by Trump have been shared in the release of a new book by a former staffer of his administration, who shares details about occasions where Trump made lewd comments about his daughter Ivanka. 

Miles Taylor, who served as a Department of Homeland Security Chief of Staff under Trump, shares extremely repulsive things the former president allegedly said about his daughter in front of his colleagues in his book, Blowback: A Warning to Save Democracy from the Next Trump.

Another Chief of Staff reportedly recounted a conversation “in visible disgust,” Taylor writes. “Trump, he said, was ‘a very, very evil man.’”

The post Donald Trump sues E Jean Carroll for defamation appeared first on Women's Agenda.

“Today, the world finally knows the truth,” Carroll said in a statement. “This victory is not just for me but for every woman who has suffered because she was not believed.”

The former Elle advice columnist alleged that Trump raped her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in 1995 or 1996 and then defamed her on his truth social platform in October 2022 by denying it happened and calling her a liar. 

After three hours of deliberation, a nine-member jury, made up of three women and six men, found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against Carroll but stopped short of ruling that he raped her. 

As this was a civil case and not a criminal case, the only legal sanction Trump will face is financial– Carroll will be awarded a total of US$5 million. 

This marks the first time a former US president has been branded a sexual predator. 

At the beginning of the trial, Carroll testified that Trump’s attack had made it impossible for her to engage in future romantic partnerships, saying she could barely look at a man she was interested in. She also said Trump destroyed her reputation after calling her a liar, leading Elle magazine to fire her after 27 years.  

“I’m here because Donald Trump raped me and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen,” Carroll said. “He lied and shattered my reputation. I’m here to try and get my life back.”

Absent from the civil trial, including when the verdict was read, Trump voiced outrage on his truth social platform, writing in all capital letters: “I have absolutely no idea who this woman is. This verdict is a disgrace– a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time!”

In Trump’s video deposition taken last October, he was shown a well-known black and white photograph of himself with Carroll and, at one point in the video, Trump mistook Carroll for his ex-wife Marla Maples. He then acknowledged that the photo suggests he met Carroll at least once, and he had previously stated he could not have raped Carroll because she was “not my type”. 

At closings jurors were also shown infamous video footage of Trump’s “Access Hollywood” tape where he describes how he aggressively makes moves on women without their consent. 

While cross-examining Carroll, Trump’s attorney, Joseph Tacopina focused on asking why she had not screamed or called the police at the time of the alleged assault. Tacopina also said he would disprove her allegation by showing Carroll had conspired to accuse Trump because she “hated” his politics. 

While Trump’s legal team was unsuccessful, Professor of Psychology at the University of Denver, Anne P. DePrince explains that these lines of questioning reinforced common myths about sexual assault and that research has shown “people respond in diverse ways when they experience traumatic events, including sexual assault”, and that “women have many reasons for disclosing- or not disclosing- sexual harassment and assault”.

During her testimony, the now 79-year-old Carroll– who was about 52-years-old at the time of the alleged assault– said she waited to come forward because she was a “member of the silent generation”. 

“Women like me were taught and trained to keep our chins up and to not complain,” she said.

“The fact that I never went to the police is not surprising for someone my age.”

And given the consequences of women who come forward with sexual assault allegations, Carroll was asked if she regretted accusing Trump.

“I regretted this about 100 times but, in the end, being able to get my day in court finally is everything,” she said. 

Trump’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina told reporters outside the federal courthouse that Trump, who is campaigning to retake the White House in 2024, will appeal. 

The post E Jean Carroll wins US$5 million in civil case against Donald Trump appeared first on Women's Agenda.

But on Tuesday this week, the landmark trial was dismissed, after Fox agreed to a US$787.5 million payout. Who were the key players in this lawsuit, and more importantly, what now? Let’s take a close look.

Who are Dominion Voting Systems?

Dominion Voting Systems are a Toronto-founded company that produce election technology, such as electronic voting hardware and software, voting machines and tabulators.

It is owned by a New York-based, middle-market private equity firm, Staple Street Capital, who acquired the business in July 2018. 

By selling, licensing and maintaining its voting products, Dominion has become one of America’s largest providers of election technology.

The company has been led by its CEO and President, John Poulos since its inception in 2003. Poulos broaden the accessibility of voting machines by adding audio readouts for audibly impaired voters, “sip and puff” system for quadriplegics, and larger screens for the blind and visually impaired. 

In 2011, when he was named a Top 40 Under 40 by The Globe and Mail, Poulos, 48, said the voting procedure has forgotten about disabled people.

“If you were a blind person, you would have to rely on someone else to record your ballot,” he said. “It limits access to democracy.”

Why did Dominion Voting Systems sue Fox?

In January 2021, Dominion sued Donald Trump’s then lawyer Rudy Giuliani, accusing him of exploiting false election-fraud claims in an attempt to sell gold and silver coins, cigars and supplements on his social platform. Dominion accused a number of other networks and public figures of spreading spurious narratives, thereby exposing its employees to harassment. 

Dominion said it wanted to “set the record straight, to vindicate the company’s rights under civil law, to recover compensatory and punitive damages, and to stand up for itself, its employees, and the electoral process.”

“Even after the United States Capitol had been stormed by rioters who had been deceived by Giuliani and his allies, Giuliani shirked responsibility for the consequences of his words and repeated the Big Lie again,” the company added, referring to false claims Giuliani made about the 2020 presidential election being stolen during his time as Trump’s attorney.

Fox was then issued a lawsuit, accused of attacking the company and damaging its reputation by echoing conspiracy theories that tried to explain Trump’s failed bid for a second term.

What happened this week? 

On Tuesday, a jury in Wilmington, Delaware was selected, and the lawyers from both sides were preparing to make their opening statements. A few hours later, an agreement was reached between the parties, as Judge Eric M. Davis announced the case had been resolved.  

According to CNN one of the lawyers representing Fox flashed a piece of paper to a Dominion lawyer. The two apparently then stepped outside before returning and continuing their conversation. 

Fox had agreed to a US$787.5 million settlement.

Outside the courthouse, a lawyer for Dominion, Justin Nelson, said, “The truth matters. Lies have consequences.” 

“Over two years ago, a torrent of lies swept Dominion and election officials across America into an alternative universe of conspiracy theories causing grievous harm to Dominion and the country.”

In a statement, Fox Corporation said that they “acknowledge the court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.”

“We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.”

Jim Rutenberg from the Times spoke to a source familiar with the details of the agreement, and said that under the terms of the settlement, “Fox News will not have to apologise or admit to spreading false claims on network programming.” 

What would have happened if the trial had gone ahead?

The trial was largely expected to have exposed Fox Corporation —  a cable network which has historically evaded outside scrutiny. 

The abrupt settlement means that no high-profile Fox executives will have to testify — these witnesses included chairman of Fox Corporation Rupert Murdoch and hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Maria Bartiromo — some of whom, according to Rutenberg, “privately expressed concerns about the veracity of claims being made on its shows.”

Had the trial gone ahead, the jury would have had to decide whether Fox had acted with “actual malice” (ie. they had “knowingly broadcast lies or had recklessly disregarded obvious evidence that the statements were untrue.”) 

Dominion has several other defamation suits pending — including ones against Fox competitors Newsmax and OAN, election-deniers such as online retailer Overstock.com founder and its former CEO Patrick Byrne, Minnesota-based pillow manufacturer MyPillow’s chief executive Mike Lindell, and the ones against former lawyers for Trump, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell. 

In 2021, Dominion claimed that Patrick Byrne, 60, made a total of 18 defamatory public remarks relating to the company, and promoted conspiracy theories saying that Joe Biden’s win over Trump was fraudulent. 

The post Fox announces $787.5 million payout in one of the largest defamation settlements in U.S  appeared first on Women's Agenda.

K Kawshigan is claiming damages in Singapore’s High Court for loss in earnings and investments, and “rehabilitation and therapy programmes to overcome the sustained trauma” he has accused her of inflicting, court documents read.

Kawshigan claims Nora Tan Shu Mei of damaging his “stellar reputation” and for “monetary damages arising from negligent infliction of emotional distress and possible defamation”. 

The case returns to the High Court on March 2.

Last July, Kawshigan also filed a lawsuit against Tan in a local magistrates court, accusing her of breaching an alleged agreement between them to “improve their relationship” and for “allegedly defamatory remarks and negligent conduct.” 

“Such remarks, he averred, suggested that he had harassed and spied on her, and this caused him to suffer ‘damage to his stellar reputation’ as well as ‘trauma, depression and impacts’ to his life,” the court papers read. 

This case was dismissed by the court last month as “an abuse of process” and  “manifestly groundless and without foundation.”

The judgement released in January said Kawshigan had an “ulterior motive of vexing or oppressing the defendant”.

“Considered in totality, I find that the present action was intentionally initiated by the Claimant (Mr Kawshigan) with the ulterior motive of vexing or oppressing the Defendant (Ms Tan) by requiring her to defend various claims,” the magistrate wrote. 

“This court will not be an accessory to his calculated attempt to compel engagement from the Defendant who, after years of massaging the Claimant’s unhappiness, has finally decided to stand up to his threats rather than cower and give in to his demands.” 

Background 
The pair met at a social event in 2016 and commenced a friendship that lasted until 2020, when their intentions about the relationship “became misaligned”, according to court documents. 

“While the defendant only regarded the claimant as a ‘friend’, he considered her to be his ‘closest friend’,” the court papers said. 

Tan wanted to reduce the interactions she had with Kawshigan — a desire that Kawshigan claimed would “tak[e] a step back in the[ir] relationship”. 

Tan indicated her growing “discomfort” around their relationship and suggested Kawshigan be more “self-reliant.” 

Kawshigan threatened legal action against her, alleging he had suffered emotional trauma when she told him she thought of him as a friend, and telling her she should adhere to his demands or suffer “irrevocable damages to [her] personal and professional endeavours”. 

Consequently, Tan agreed to undergo counselling for 18 months, after spending years “massaging the claimant’s unhappiness”, court documents revealed. 

“While the defendant had hoped that the counselling sessions would help the claimant come to terms with her decision to not pursue a romantic relationship with him, this was not the result,” the documents said.

Tan had even suggested a list of “improvements” she could make to their friendship, such as “meeting up based on mutual availability beyond coffee settings” and provide “room for [him] to share inspiration, struggle and achievements”. 

“Faced with repeated requests and demands for more frequent meetings and deeper conversations, the defendant [Tan] decided in May 2022 to cease all contact with the claimant,” the court said. 

In one phone conversation submitted to court, Kawshigan had said to Tan, “Your discomfort is as fake as the cause.” 

“And emotionally, till the day I die, you are the cause of my trauma.” 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Halle’s Blog Back Up Page (@hallesblogafricaofficial)

Tan’s harassment case against Kawshigan
Tan launched a countersue against Kawshigan for harassment earlier this month, claiming expenses she incurred to protect herself from him. 

Tan told the court she installed a digital door viewer, an alarm sensor and a smart video doorbell to protect herself from Kawshigan. 

She is seeking damages for S$480 (AUD$530) for installing the equipment, and S$1,000 (AUD$1,102) for expenses incurred while engaging in counselling and “healing” sessions under Kawshigan’s suggestion. 

Tan’s harassment case is still ongoing. 

Public Response 
Singapore-based women’s advocacy group, Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), released a statement on social media, condemning Kawshigan’s legal proceedings.  

“Women do not owe men their time or attention, much less their friendship, love, sexual activity or emotional labour,” they said.

The case “paints an alarming picture of male sexual and romantic entitlement,” and identified  Kawshigan’s complaint as an example of Darvo: “Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender”, a strategy abusers use to situate themselves as the injured party and punish real victims for not complying.

“In a society that views women as ‘less than’, many men believe that they have a right to women’s lives and bodies, and assert themselves accordingly,” Aware said. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by AWARE Singapore (@awaresingapore)

“Concepts such as the ‘friend zone’ – which implies that women should by default be sexually attracted to the men in their lives – are part of this spectrum of male entitlement.” 

“We need to dismantle toxic masculinity and the patriarchal mindsets that underpin this behaviour.” 

If women could file claims against men for “rehabilitation and therapy programs to overcome the sustained trauma,” — let’s just say, there wouldn’t be enough money to go around the world to compensate every woman who has ever been damaged by a man. 

Singapore’s culture of misogyny 
In Singapore, a sovereign city-state of almost six million, women continue to experience harassment at startling rates. 

A 2019 study found that more than a quarter of women in Singapore have experienced some form of sexual harassment, with almost fifty per cent saying they didn’t report it due to embarrassment or fear of retribution. 

In the same year however, the UN Human Development Report ranked Singapore 11th out of 162 countries for gender equality. 

A 2022 Ipsos poll revealed a different story. According to the study, 1 in 3 Singaporean men believe feminism does more harm than good and a quarter of Singaporeans deny the existence of gender inequality. 

The poll also found a fifth of Singaporeans agreed that violence against women is often provoked by the victim, while one in seven Singaporean men believe it’s acceptable to send someone unrequested explicit images.

Melanie Ng, Director of Public Affairs at Ipsos in Singapore said at the time, “Singaporeans are not entirely cognisant of the gender inequality that exists in our communities and in the world.”

“The education around gender equality goes beyond driving equal career opportunities or recognising that a woman is more than a wife or mother,” she said.

“At its core, it is about recognising that everyone deserves respect and due consideration of their self-worth and not solely by the role that they play.”

The post In Singapore, a man sues a woman for not reciprocating his romantic intentions appeared first on Women's Agenda.

There is no better example of how Australia’s defamation laws enable the rich and powerful to intimidate their critics than Lachlan Murdoch suing Crikey.com over a comment piece concerning Fox News, Donald Trump and the Washington insurrection of January 6 2021.

Crikey says it has published the correspondence between its lawyers and Murdoch’s in order to show how media power is abused in Australia.

The correspondence begins with a “concerns notice” Murdoch sent to Crikey, which is the essential first step in launching an action for defamation. In it, Murdoch claims that the Crikey commentary by Bernard Keane, published on June 29 2022, conveyed 14 meanings that were defamatory of Murdoch.

Murdoch’s allegation and Crikey’s defence

According to Murdoch’s claims, Keane’s piece alleges that Lachlan Murdoch illegally conspired with Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 US presidential election result and incite an armed mob to march on the Capitol to prevent the result from being confirmed.

Crikey has responded by disputing that these meanings are conveyed, saying they are “contrived and do not arise”. Crikey also argues that whatever it published could not possibly have done serious harm to Lachlan Murdoch’s reputation.

In order to get an action for defamation off the ground, Murdoch, the plaintiff in this case, has to satisfy the court that serious reputational harm has been done. The court may well decide this is the case.

Crikey says that given what much bigger media companies such as the Washington Post, the New York Times and the ABC (American Broadcasting Company) have already published about Murdoch’s Fox News and its propagation of the “Big Lie” that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen, what Crikey has published cannot further harm Murdoch’s reputation.

US vs Australian defamation protections

This brings us to the first way Australia’s defamation laws facilitate intimidatory action by the rich and powerful.

Since those two big American newspapers have published similar material to that published by Crikey, the question naturally arises: why has Lachlan Murdoch not sued them? The answer is that in the United States, there is a “public figure” defence to defamation.

In the US, Lachlan Murdoch would easily qualify as a public figure, being executive chairman and CEO of Fox Corporation. If he sued there, he would have to prove malice on the part of the newspapers. That means he would have to prove that the newspapers lied or were recklessly indifferent to the truth.

No such defence is available to the media in Australia, despite decades of intermittent campaigning by the media that it is needed. The reasons these efforts have gone nowhere are twofold.

First, Australian politicians are among the most avid users of defamation laws, and it would be unrealistic to expect they would change this convenient state of affairs. This has been illustrated recently by the successful defamation action taken by the former deputy premier of NSW, John Barilaro, against an online satirist, Jordan Shanks, aka friendlyjordies.

Second, the tradition of accountability in public life is weak in Australia and the tradition of secrecy is strong, as vividly demonstrated by Scott Morrison’s behaviour in the affair of the multiple portfolios.

Another major factor in the chilling effect that the Australian defamation laws exert on the media is the extravagant damages the courts have awarded to plaintiffs that sue media companies, as well as the high cost of litigation. This has caused large media companies to settle cases even when they had an arguable prospect of defending themselves.

A recent example was when the biography of the AFL player Eddie Betts was published, confirming what had happened at the now notorious training camp held by the Adelaide Crows in 2018. At the camp, Betts alleged he was targeted, abused and the camp “misused personal and sensitive information.”

However, when The Age broke the story initially, it was sued by the company that ran the camp. The newspaper issued an apology, although it did not admit the story was wrong.

The Age said its parent company, Nine Entertainment, had made a “business decision” to settle the case. In other words, it did not want to risk the costs and damages involved in contesting the suit.

Liabilities for online publication

A third main factor is the failure of the Morrison administration to bring to finality stage two of the defamation law reforms, which concern the liabilities and defences for online publication.

Currently, anyone who publishes a website or a blog is liable for the comments made there by third parties. Continuously moderating comment streams for potentially defamatory material is onerous and expensive at a time when media organisations have far fewer resources than they did in the pre-digital age.

Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that Lachlan Murdoch feels he can use his immense wealth and power to intimidate and silence a relatively small outfit like Crikey.com. Behind him stand corporations with a market capitalisation of billions. Crikey says its company, Private Media, is valued at less than $20 million.

Murdoch’s demands

Murdoch wants Crikey to take down the story and issue an apology. In pursuit of his case, he has filed suit in the Federal Court.

In defiance of Murdoch’s claim, Crikey has published his 2014 oration at the State Library of Victoria named in honour of his grandfather, Sir Keith Murdoch, as part of its publishing of the legal correspondence:

Censorship should be resisted in all its insidious forms. We should be vigilant of the gradual erosion of our freedom to know, to be informed and make reasoned decisions in our society and in our democracy. We must all take notice and, like Sir Keith, have the courage to act when those freedoms are threatened.

Quite.

Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Murdoch v Crikey highlights how Australia’s defamation laws protect the rich and powerful appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Johnny Depp has won his defamation suit against his ex-wife Amber Heard for her Washington Post op-ed article published in 2018, which stated she was a “public figure representing domestic abuse”.

The facts in every case are unique, and the jury is always in a better position to judge these facts than commentators relying on media reports.

Nevertheless in such a high profile case as this, the verdict has a ripple effect that can go beyond the facts. The unfortunate reality is the Depp Heard case is likely to reinforce the fear that women who come forward with claims of sexual and domestic abuse will encounter a system in which they are unlikely to be believed.

Reform is needed to better balance the protection of men’s individual reputations with the rights of women to speak about their experiences.

Defamation a tool of elite men

Depp was awarded more than US$10 million in damages after convincing the jury Heard was a malicious liar.

This is despite the fact a UK judge determined in 2020 that it was “substantially true” Depp had assaulted Heard repeatedly during their relationship.

After the verdict, Heard commented she was “heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway” of her famous ex-husband.

Historically, the common law of defamation was built to protect public men in their professions and trades. It worked to both defend their reputations individually and shut down speech about them as a group.

Data from the United States in the late 20th century shows women comprise only 11% of plaintiffs bringing defamation suits.

As legal scholar Diane Borden has noted, the majority of libel plaintiffs are “men engaged in corporate or public life who boast relatively elite standing in their communities”.

Defamation trials – which run according to complex and idiosyncratic rules – are often lengthy and expensive, thus favouring those with the resources to instigate and pursue them.

Various defences exist, including arguing that the comments are factually true, or that they were made on occasions of “qualified privilege”, where a person has a duty to communicate information and the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving it.

But in one way or another, disputes concerning allegations of sexual and domestic abuse usually come down to matters of credibility and believability that play on gendered stereotypes.

It becomes another version of “he said, she said”, and as we’ve seen from the social media response to Amber Heard, women making these types of allegations are often positioned as vengeful or malicious liars before their cases even reach the courts. This is despite the fact sexual assault and intimate partner violence are common, and false reporting is rare.

In fact, most victims don’t tell the police, their employer or others what happened to them due to fears of not being believed, facing professional consequences, or being subject to shaming and further abuse.

Heard has received thousands of death threats and suffered relentless mockery on social media.

Time for reform

The global #MeToo movement and recent Australian campaigns, such as those instigated by Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins, encourage survivors to speak out and push collectively for change.

But now, ruinous and humiliating defamation suits could further coerce and convince women to keeping their experiences quiet and private. Measures must be taken to better protect public speech on such matters.

One potential way forward is for defamation trials involving imputations of gendered abuse to incorporate expert evidence about the nature of sexual and domestic violence in our society.

For decades, feminist legal scholars fought for the inclusion of such evidence in criminal trials, especially those relating to matters of self-defence in domestic homicides and issues of consent in rape proceedings.

Expert sociological and psychological evidence can combat and discredit ingrained patriarchal assumptions and myths – comments and questions such as “what was she wearing?”; “why didn’t she fight back?”; “why didn’t she just leave him?”; “why was she nice to him afterwards?” or “why didn’t she tell people at the time?”

Otherwise, pervasive gender bias – often held by both men and women, judge and jury – can undermine the voices and accounts of women before they even set foot in court, before they even open their mouths.

Defamation trials have not traditionally included such expert evidence. But now that they have become a powerful forum for silencing speech about gendered harm, perhaps it’s time they did so.

Jessica Lake, Research Fellow, Australian Catholic University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Could the Depp v. Heard case make other abuse survivors too scared to speak up? appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Releasing a statement to Twitter, Heard said that her disappointment is “beyond words” and that she’s heartbroken that the evidence shared wasn’t enough to “stand up to the disproportionate power, influence and sway of my ex-husband”.

“It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously.”

After the six-week trial, the jury of seven found in favour of the 58-year old on all three counts. Depp’s lawyers successfully proved that Heard had made false and defamatory statements in her Washington Post op ed, and had done so with “actual malice” — a higher threshold for cases involving public figures.

Depp was never named in Heard’s op-ed, in which she outlined how “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath” and noted how “two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse”

The jurors’ unanimous decision on Wednesday ended the trial in Virginia, which saw dozens of witnesses and experts interrogated about the couple’s 15-month marriage, and whether the pair were abusive towards each other. 

But Depp’s win was not absolute, with the jurors awarding Heard on one count of her countersuit, where she argued she was defamed by Depp’s press agent who accused her of roughing up their apartment for police to look worse and calling her allegations “an abuse hoax” seeking to capitalise on the #MeToo movement.

The 36-year old actress was awarded US$2 million (AUD$2.79 million).  

Heard was present in the courtroom while the verdict was read out, but did not make any comments — until later tweeting her reaction. 

The televised trial has seen significant vitriol and backlash against Heard online and across the wider media, particularly from Depp fans as well as those who used the trial as a means to dismiss stories of women and some of the overarching themes of the #MeToo movement.

Heard has been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories online, including that she faked photos of injuries. She has been ruthlessly trolled and mocked, especially for getting emotional in describing her allegations against Depp.

Depp, who was not present in the courtroom when the verdict was read out, released a statement, thanking the jury, saying — “the jury gave me my life back. I am truly humbled.”

 “My decision to pursue this case, knowing very well the height of the legal hurdles that I would be facing and the inevitable, worldwide spectacle into my life, was only made after considerable thought,” he said.

“From the very beginning, the goal of bringing this case was to reveal the truth, regardless of the outcome. Speaking the truth was something that I owed to my children and to all those who have remained steadfast in their support of me. I feel at peace knowing I have finally accomplished that.”

“I hope that my quest to have the truth be told will have helped others, men or women, who have found themselves in my situation, and that those supporting them never give up.”

“I also hope that the position will now return to innocent until proven guilty, both within the courts and in the media,” he expressed, before ending the statement with a Latin quote: “Veritas numquam perit” – Truth never perishes.

“I’m even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It’s a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously.”

Depp’s attorneys addressed a cheering crowd outside the court after the verdict was read out, saying that the results, “confirmed what we have said from the beginning – that the claims against Johnny Depp were defamatory and unsupported by any evidence”.

The post ‘Setback for women’: Amber Heard issues statement after Johnny Depp’s defamation win appeared first on Women's Agenda.

The trial, which will be broadcasted live on American digital broadcast network Court TV, will see many high-profile individuals testify, including James Franco, Paul Bettany, and Elon Musk. 

The trial comes two years after Depp lost a libel case in London against The Sun when the British tabloid labelled him a “wife-beater”.

During that trial in July 2020, Heard testified that she had feared for her life during several encounters with her then-husband. 

Justice Nicol eventually found that the assaults were proven to the civil standard and that the article in question was “substantially true”.

Now, Depp is attempting to sue Heard as part of an effort to disprove allegations that he abused her during their three-year marriage.

On Monday, prior to jury selection commencing with Justice Penney Azcarate presiding, a court order announced that “Litigants and their legal teams in this trial will not pose for pictures or sign autographs in the courthouse or on courthouse grounds,” and barred fans of Heard and Depp from “camp[ing] on courthouse grounds.”

Depp’s case against Heard rests on an opinion piece Heard published in the Washington Post in December 2019, where she declared herself to be “a public figure representing domestic abuse” and explained how she had experienced “the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out”.

Heard does not mention Depp by name in the article, so Depp’s legal team must show she not only defamed the actor, but also did so with malice.

According to The Press Association, Depp’s lawyers will introduce witness testimony in the trial, assessing photographs and texts in order to seek $67 million worth of damages.

Heard issued a statement last week on Instagram, telling her 4.1 million followers that she continues to pay a price for speaking out against powerful men.

“Hopefully when this case concludes, I can move on and so can Johnny,” she wrote.

“I have always maintained a love for Johnny and it brings me great pain to have to live out the details of our past life together in front of the world.”

The Guardian notes that Heard’s lawyers will likely invoke a Virginia law that protects individuals from civil liability under certain circumstances, such as defamation based singularly on statements made either to third parties regarding “matters of public concern that would be protected under the first amendment” to the US constitution.

Heard’s lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft, has argued that domestic violence comes under the banner of “matters of public concern”. 

The post Johnny Depp’s $67 million defamation lawsuit against ex-wife Amber Heard begins appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Porter, Australia’s former Attorney-General and now Minister for Science, Industry and Technology, launched defamation proceedings against the ABC in March, over an online article written by Louise Milligan on February 26 about a rape allegation against a sitting Cabinet minister. Porter was not named in the article, but he alleged he was made identifiable to the public.

In a statement on Monday, the ABC said Christian Porter had “decided to discontinue his defamation action against the ABC and Louise Milligan”.

The ABC said all parties agreed not to pursue the defamation matter any further, and that no damages would be paid.

“The ABC stands by the importance of the article, which reported on matters of significant public interest, and the article remains online,” the ABC statement said.

On Twitter, Louise Milligan, the journalist at the centre of the defamation case, said she was proud of her work and continues to stand by it.

“Christian Porter has discontinued his case. The ABC will pay him no damages. I stand by my journalism & proud to work @4Corners & grateful to the ABC & our brilliant legal team for supporting public interest journalism,” Milligan wrote.

Christian Porter has discontinued his case. The ABC will pay him no damages. I stand by my journalism & proud to work @4corners & grateful to the ABC & our brilliant legal team for supporting public interest journalism. Thanks, everyone, for your support. https://t.co/1l0h3SjlAQ

— Louise Milligan (@Milliganreports) May 31, 2021

A hearing in the federal court was initially scheduled to go ahead on Monday but was abandoned amid negotiations between the two parties.  

The original article published by the ABC has been amended with a note from the editor, saying it did not intend to imply that Porter committed the criminal offences alleged. The note also says it stands by Louise Milligan’s investigative work.

“On 26 February 2021, the ABC published an article by Louise Milligan. That article was about a letter to the Prime Minister containing allegations against a senior cabinet minister. Although he was not named, the article was about the Attorney-General Christian Porter,” the editor’s note states.

“The ABC did not intend to suggest that Mr Porter had committed the criminal offences alleged. The ABC did not contend that the serious accusations could be substantiated to the applicable legal standard – criminal or civil. However, both parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted.

“The ABC stands by our investigative and public interest journalism, which is always pursued in the interests of the Australian community.

“The ABC stands by Louise Milligan, one of Australia’s foremost and most awarded investigative journalists, and all our journalists in their independent and brave reporting on matters about which Australians have a right to be informed.”

BREAKING! Christian Porter is dropping his defamation case against the ABC. No damages were paid. We stand by our stories. #4Corners #auspol

— Sally Neighbour (@neighbour_s) May 31, 2021

After a week of intense media scrutiny following the publication of the article, Porter identified himself as the subject and strenuously denied the allegations that he had raped a 16-year-old girl in 1988.

The post Christian Porter discontinues defamation case against the ABC and Louise Milligan appeared first on Women's Agenda.

In 2017, Moy and her bridal planning company were targeted by a rival business owner and her friend. In a series of Facebook comments, the pair claimed Moy was an unprofessional bully who ruined her clients’ weddings.

Late last year, Moy won a landmark defamation case in which the two women were ordered to pay her $150,000.

It’s a familiar story, says Courtney Bowie, the Founder of Her Lawyer, who wants to warn business owners about their actions online. “This is a great example of how online comments can massively backfire,” she says.

Even if you have a valid complaint about another brand copying your idea or not paying an invoice, Bowie says venting on social media should be a last resort for business owners.

“For business owners who’ve had a bad experience with a service provider or those who think they’ve had their intellectual property ripped off, it can be tempting to try to get them cancelled on social media. I’ve seen this done in a really damaging way, where one business owner can incite hatred for another brand online with horrible reviews and boycott calls. In some cases, this results in the person behind the business receiving hate-mail from followers and even death threats in private messages,” explains Bowie. “There is a fine line between defending yourself or holding others accountable, and actually causing harm.”

These online comments can have real-world consequences; let’s not forget the $150,000 worth of compensation in Moy’s defamation case. “There’s a perception that it’s okay to try to cancel a business on social media, but a lot of people don’t know the potential impacts of doing so,” explains Bowie.

“In Australia, the defamation laws are very broad. There have been cases recently with hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages award,” she adds. “Even if you don’t publish the original comment but simply re-tweet, re-share or even allow a comment to remain in your forum (for example, your Facebook group), you can face a claim for defamation. And it doesn’t stop at defamation – you could also be looking at claims for malicious falsehood, tortious interference, or even misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, where a Court can award a penalty of up to $10M.”

Outside the legal realm, Bowie says dragging someone through online mud can tarnish your own reputation. “Your conduct in the digital world leaves a footprint, and potential clients, collaborators and employees will make judgements about you on that. If you’re airing dirty laundry online, it can reflect poorly on you,” she explains.

“Also beware of the ‘Streisand effect’ (so named for Barbara Streisand’s attempts to shut down images of her home online which then went viral) which happened recently when the Kardashian clan tried to have unauthorised, unedited images of Khloe Kardashian pulled from the internet. This can actually cause more airtime and eyeballs to be drawn to the issue. That might be something you want, but it could also have the unintended consequence of giving the other person an uplift in followers or shining a negative light on you or your business”, Bowie continues.

In addition to the reputational, legal (and potentially financial) consequences for the cancel-er, there can also be serious outcomes for the cancel-ed.

Ginger Gorman, a journalist, cyberhate expert and author of the bestselling book Troll Hunting, knows how damaging trolling can be – having experienced it firsthand in 2013 when she became the target of a relentless online attack. Since then, Gorman has investigated cyberhate and seen some extreme cases.

“When you are a business owner, [hate campaigns] can have devastating consequences,” she says. “For example, I’ve frequently been told stories of unfair or untrue Airbnb or Trip Adviser reviews that are vicious and just plain wrong – and in worst case scenarios, that false information can result in a business shutting down (if the pile on is bad enough).”

“One of the worst cases I’ve seen was in 2019 when the ABC sent me hundreds of online posts sent – in both directions – between farmers and activists. Most of these were between women and sent on platforms like Instagram and Facebook. Some of the attacks were so vicious, producers ended up losing their businesses or simply being unable to operate safely and humanely,” Gorman continues.

Of course, being on the receiving end of such abuse takes its toll. Bowie says she is particularly concerned about the emotional wellbeing of the business owners involved in such situations: “When someone has been cancelled or has received death threats on social media, it can have a dramatic impact on their mental health. It’s already hard being a business owner, the last thing you need is a virtual hate campaign. With suicide the leading cause of death in those aged 18 to 44 in Australia, we need to be thinking beyond our initial fear, panic or anger and carefully considering the consequences of our actions.”

So what’s the alternative? It’s a question that’s been posed at networking events, in Facebook business groups and to corporate advice columnists since the dawn of social media.

In a 2018 blog, Chantelle Baxter the founder of jewellery label Be. Bangles, asked “WTF Do you do when another business keeps copying you?”

The two-word answer: don’t attack. The longer version… “After years of being a bit of an aggressive bitch in business, I’m all for taking the peaceful path now,” Baxter admits. “We’ve had customers send us screenshots of our competitor’s ads, and while we appreciate their loyalty, we ask everyone to keep their comments above board. Attacking other people in business is not what we want to be known for.”

While unleashing a wrath of fury on your keyboard can be therapeutic in the moment, Gorman urges people to think before they act.

“You may have had a terrible experience and wish to bite back! But just keep in mind the so-called ‘online disinhibition effect.’ This is where, on the internet, there seems to be no consequence for our actions,” she explains. “However, on the other end of that tweet, Facebook or Insta post you’re furiously sending out into the world, is a real person trying to make a living. What will be the cost to them? Is there another way you could handle this? Could you word your complaint more politely or address the issue privately? Does it need to be public?”

To answer those questions, Bowie recommends the BLOOM method: Breathe, Listen, Organise, Options, Mitigate.

“There are other ways to resolve disputes rather than turning into a keyboard warrior – or taking it straight to the Supreme Court,” advises Bowie, who says a simple phone call can make a big difference in coming to some sort of resolution. “If a phone call or a DM isn’t going to cut it, look at a mediation service. Mediation is an affordable and productive way of resolving disputes. The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman has a free online Dispute Support tool to help you find the a low cost dispute resolution service to help you resolve your business dispute.”

If that doesn’t work, the next step could be to speak to a lawyer and discuss the chances of success and cost of litigation.

Before Baxter dealt with a copycat at Be. Bangles, she had a similar experience with her charity One Girl. “We had someone create a company and website so similar to ours that we had to get our lawyers to write them a firm letter asking them to change their name and take it down,” she recalls. “Business owners need to know their rights and protect themselves.”

In the case of intellectual property, that can be easier said than done, says Bowie, “Our Copyright Act was written in 1968, so many of its provisions are irrelevant to today’s business owners. Unfortunately, the law in this area – like in so many others – is slow to catch up to modern business. I can understand the frustration of business owners who struggle to get the certainty and comfort they need and want from the law.”

If you’ve exhausted all options with no success, then it might time to consider taking it to social media. “There are certainly instances where is it appropriate to publicly complain,” says Gorman. “But if you do, be corrective and polite. Don’t incite aggression or hatred. If we want the world to be a kinder place, it has to start with us.”

From a legal standpoint, Bowie also encourages anyone posting online to make sure what they’re sharing is factual – and that it’s not breaking any confidentiality or non-disparagement contract clauses.

At Her Lawyer, the general rule of thumb for social media is: Never post anything on the internet that you wouldn’t be happy to appear on the front page of Sydney Morning Herald. Words to live by (and get printed on a novelty mug).

Ultimately, Bowie would like to see women supporting women in business – not cancelling each other. “Disputes are always going to happen in business, but they don’t need to turn into social media shakedowns. I think we should give others a chance to fix their mistakes before boycotting them altogether,” says Bowie, with the wisdom of a lawyer and group admin on Facebook.

Women’s Agenda is working with Her Lawyer to deliver key guides and ideas covering off some of the most common legal issues facing women in business. You can check out Her Lawyer here.

The post Defamation, ‘cancel culture’ and the perils of fighting back as a business owner appeared first on Women's Agenda.

On Monday, Justice Michael Lee awarded Dr Stead “indemnity costs” from the date of April 22, 2020, when she offered to settle the case for a $190,000 payout, the removal of offending articles and payment costs, which the publisher rejected. Nine also later rejected an offer from Dr Stead of $140,000, an apology and the removal of the articles.

The decision comes after Dr Stead, the former managing director of venture capital at Blue Sky Alternative Investments, sued the AFR and Aston over a series of published columns.

In January, Justice Lee found that Aston had defamed Dr Stead in a “sustained campaign of offensive mockery” which amounted to a “form of bullying”. Aston had referred to Dr Stead as a “feminist cretin” who “set fire to people’s money”, among other things.

Justice Lee said Dr Stead suffered a “slow death” as a result of Aston’s determination to “go after” her in his columns. Dr Stead was awarded $280,000 in damages by the federal court.

In ordering Nine to pay Dr Stead’s legal costs, Justice Lee said the publisher had been too optimistic about defending Aston’s defamation suit.

“Fairfax and Mr Aston proceeded Micawber-like, in the hope something might turn up to prove truth or allow substantial truth to be proved, notwithstanding the deficiencies in setting out some of the facts relied upon,” he said.

The post Nine ordered to pay Dr Elaine Stead’s legal costs in defamation case appeared first on Women's Agenda.