Editing Defamation (section)

===Australia===
{{main |Defamation in Australia}}

Defamation law in [[Australia]] developed primarily out of the English law of defamation and its cases, though now there are differences introduced by statute and by the implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established in ''[[Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]'' (1997).<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|25|1997|litigants=Lange v Australian Broadcasting Company |parallelcite=(1997) 189 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 520 |courtname=auto}}.</ref>

In 2006, uniform defamation laws came into effect across Australia.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Dixon |first1=Nicolee |title=Research Brief No 2005/14: Uniform Defamation Laws |url=https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/explore/ResearchPublications/ResearchBriefs/2005/200514.pdf |website=Queensland Parliament |publisher=Queensland Parliamentary Library |access-date=6 September 2020 |date=2005}}</ref> In addition to fixing the problematic inconsistencies in law between individual States and Territories, the laws made a number of changes to the common law position, including:
* Abolishing the distinction between libel and slander.<ref name="Defamation Act 2005 No 77 (NSW)">{{cite web |url=https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2005-077 |title=Defamation Act 2005 No 77 (NSW) |date=1 January 2006 |website=NSW legislation |publisher=NSW Parliamentary Counsel's Office |access-date=8 September 2023}}</ref>{{rp |at=§7}}<ref name=mpearson>{{cite journal |last1=Pearson |first1=Mark |title=A review of Australia's defamation reforms after a year of operation |journal=Australian Journalism Review |date=1 July 2007 |volume=29 |issue=1 |citeseerx=10.1.1.1030.7304 }}</ref>
* Providing new defences including that of triviality, where it is a defence to the publication of a defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiff was unlikely to sustain any harm.<ref name=mpearson/>
* The defences against defamation may be negated if there is proof the publication was actuated by malice.<ref name="Defamation Act 2005 No 77 (NSW)" />{{rp |at=§24}}
* Greatly restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see e.g. ''Defamation Act 2005'' (Vic), s 9). Corporations may, however, still sue for the tort of injurious falsehood, where the burden of proof is greater than in defamation, because the plaintiff must show that the defamation was made with malice and resulted in economic loss.<ref>{{cite web |author1=Jack Herman |author2=David Flint |url=http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/auspres.html |title=Australian Press Council – Press Law in Australia |publisher=Presscouncil.org.au |access-date=7 September 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101112041621/http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/auspres.html |archive-date=12 November 2010 }}</ref>

The 2006 reforms also established across all Australian states the availability of truth as an unqualified defence; previously a number of states only allowed a defence of truth with the condition that a public interest or benefit existed. The defendant however still needs to prove that the defamatory imputations are substantially true.<ref>{{cite web |author=Australian Law Reform Commission |date=1979 |url=http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html |title=Electronic Frontiers Australia: civil liberties online |publisher=Efa.org.au |access-date=7 September 2010 |archive-date=16 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210416223550/https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The law as it currently stands in Australia was summarised in the 2015 case of Duffy v Google by [[Malcolm Blue|Justice Blue]] in the [[Supreme Court of South Australia]]:<ref name="Duffy v Google">{{cite AustLII|SASC|170|2015|litigants=Duffy v Google Inc |pinpoint=158 |courtname=auto |date= 27 October 2015}}</ref>
{{blockquote |text=
The tort can be divided up into the following ingredients:
* the defendant participates in publication to a third party of a body of work;
* the body of work contains a passage alleged to be defamatory;
* the passage conveys an imputation;
* the imputation is about the plaintiff;
* the imputation is damaging to the plaintiff's reputation.
}}

Defences available to defamation defendants include [[absolute privilege]], [[qualified privilege]], justification (truth), honest opinion, publication of public documents, fair report of proceedings of public concern and triviality.<ref name="hobartlegal.org.au"/>

====Online====
On 10 December 2002, the [[High Court of Australia]] delivered judgment in the Internet defamation case of ''[[Dow Jones v Gutnick]]''.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|56|2002|litigants=Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick |link=Dow Jones v Gutnick |parallelcite=(2002) 210 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 575 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> The judgment established that internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in their Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian defamation law. The case gained worldwide attention and is often said, inaccurately, to be the first of its kind. A similar case that predates ''Dow Jones v Gutnick'' is ''[[Berezovsky v Michaels]]'' in England.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000511/bere-1.htm |title=Judgments{{snd}}Berezovsky v. Michaels and Others Glouchkov v. Michaels and Others (Consolidated Appeals) |date=8 May 2000 |website=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] |access-date=7 September 2023}}</ref>

Australia's first [[Twitter]] defamation case to go to trial is believed to be ''Mickle v Farley''. The defendant, former [[Orange High School (New South Wales)|Orange High School]] student Andrew Farley was ordered to pay $105,000 to a teacher for writing defamatory remarks about her on the social media platform.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Whitbourn |first1=Michaela |title=The tweet that cost $105,000 |url=https://www.smh.com.au/technology/the-tweet-that-cost-105000-20140304-341kl.html |access-date=2 March 2019 |newspaper=The Sydney Morning Herald |date=4 March 2014}}</ref>

A more recent case in defamation law was ''Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited'' [2015], heard in the [[Federal Court of Australia]]. This judgment was significant as it demonstrated that tweets, consisting of even as little as three words, can be defamatory, as was held in this case.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCA|652|2015|litigants=Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited |courtname=auto}}.</ref>