Assange Seeks To Sue Prime Minister Gillard For Defamation

First time accepted submitter menno_h writes "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he has hired lawyers to investigate how to sue Prime Minister Julia Gillard for defamation." Assange "says comments made by Ms Gillard in 2010 that WikiLeaks acted illegally in releasing US diplomatic cables have affected the viability of his organisation. 'Mastercard Australia, in justifying why it has made a blockade that prevents any Australian Mastercard holder donating to WikiLeaks, used that statement by Julia Gillard,' he said."

Comments

could be interesting

[rbrausse]

you may or may not support Assange or Wikileaks - but the lawsuit will be interesting: Mastercard used a semi-official statement by Julia Gillard to justify the blocking; is this a good-enough argument?

Re:could be interesting

[TapeCutter]

Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case.

What you are describing is called persecution, what we are talking about is called defamation. The PM called him a crook in public, MC cut him off and quoted the PM as the reason.He was clearly defamed and suffered financially because of it. If the PM wanted to call him a crook in public she could have legally done so under parliamentary privilege, she is a lawyer and knows all this but for some reason she chose to ignore it.

Re:could be interesting

[peragrin]

That's just it. It is only defamation MasterCard didn't have a legal reason. Therefore sueing the prime minister is a stunt. Wiki leaks as an entity should so sue MasterCard.

Anything else is a publicity stunt to stroke personal egos.

Re:could be interesting

[MysteriousPreacher]

Really? A guy that suborned a US Army private to illegally give him access to classified diplomatic cables wouldn't do something if he didn't have a good case? Oh, wait he might sue ME now because I said he did something illegal that he has bragged that he did only I said that it is illegal. Well it IS illegal to do what he did. You might disagree with me about whether it ought to be illegal but there's no real question that it IS.

Was it actually proven that Asange did that?

Re:could be interesting

[hot soldering iron]

He's right. At one time, I "had a friend" that would have put a bullet through Assanges' head on "unofficial" orders. Government pukes play dirty by using guys like "my friend", and always have. If you think otherwise, you're a very naive person that thinks too well of the power-seeking people in government. Thank you for being like that. People like you actually try to make the world a nice place to live in.

Re:could be interesting

[Charliemopps]

If you even speak with Julian Assange, you can be killed. Not kidding:
http://news.yahoo.com/jullian-assange-enemy-state-023345613.html

The US government successfully talked parts of the Australian government into attempting to charge him with Treason... but the Australian federal police commission rejected the argument after determining he had broken no Australian laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Allegations_of_possible_extradition_to_the_United_States

The only reason the mans not dead, is because he's famous. The US government, my government, has already tortured and killed people for less. Both during the Bush and Obama administrations. Our governments stance is that Alkiada is the same as a foreign government, so our actions against them are the same as if we were fighting a foreign government, we are not dealing with criminals. And yet, when we caught their "head of state" we executed him in front of his family. Which violates US law. They literally knelt him down, in front of his wife and shot him in the head. Read the account of the navy seal that wrote about it. Then this very same president declared a US citizen an "enemy combatant" and has a drone fire a missile into his home, while he was on foreign soil. No trial, no justice, just summary execution. This is our government. We can debate weather this is all justifiable or not, but the fact that Mr Assange has angered the US government enough to put his life in grave danger is a fact.

Re:could be interesting

[Mr. Slippery]

It seems like you're saying it would be acceptable for MasterCard to be forced to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions for, business with Assange or WikiLeaks. Is this what you're saying?

I don't know what the original posters intent was. But as for me, given that MasterCard 1) is a corporation, that is an artificial entity created by government fiat, and therefore not possessed of any natural rights; and 2) is a financial institution, and therefore should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny and regulation than other businesses; and 3) enjoys such market dominance that it has long raised anti-trust concerns, my conclusion is that fsck yes, MasterCard should be forced (upon pain of having its corporate charter and/or its privilege to conduct interstate and international commerce revoked) to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions, for any business or individual not convicted by a court of some relevant crime.

Re:could be interesting

[Capsaicin]

The thing is does he have a case.

Why wouldn't he? He was accused of criminality. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I thought accusations of criminality were one of a species of imputations that are regarded as prima facie defamatory?! In any case, I don't think it would be overly burdensome to prove that calling someone a criminal is liable to lower their reputation in the eyes of upstanding citizens, or?

He should sue MasterCard. It was MasterCard that cut him off.

Under what head of action? Are you claiming MasterCard is under an contractual obligation to process payments to Wikileaks? Or do you imagine their liability is tortious?

Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case.

The PM made a defamatory statement outside the protection of parliament. Why does he need to find an official government document?

Suing anyone but MasterCard is a publicity stunt that is nothing but an ego stroke for him.

I'm not sure that MasterCard even comes into the question of whether he can sue. After all you don't need to show monetary damage to sue in defamation. Wouldn't the fact that MasterCard may have acted on the basis of the PMs alleged defamation only be relevant when it came to decide damages?

You know, despite your authoritative pronouncements on this matter, I'm not even sure you are an Australian lawyer.

Re:could be interesting

[TapeCutter]

Libel has no case, ever. It's a bullshit charge.

So when Arthur C Clarke fought false pedophile accusations made in a tabloid newspaper via a libel suit, he should have lost?

Words have consequences, particularly when they are false and come from the mouth of the PM or anyone else with influence. The Westminster system holds politicians to account for their words via a concept called "defamation". If said defamation merely causes hurt feeling then there is no legal recourse for the "victim", similarly if a "reasonable person" would be unlikely to believe the words then there is no case to answer. eg: I can say that the PM has sex with donkeys but a "reasonable person" could be expected to know I was bullshiting.

Everything changes if the victim can show material harm (as in someone refusing to do business with you because of those words), the defamation concept is there to redress that injustice. To balance that political level of accountability, politicians also have right called "parliamentary privilege" which is basically a license to make false accusations when speaking in parliament. The "proper" thing for the PM to do if she believes somebody has broken the law is to make a formal complaint to the police or raise it under parliamentary privilege, she should not spout her opinion at a press conference, and she knows it!

It's a long standing (legal and social) tradition in Oz and the UK that politicians should keep their nose out of the judiciary by staying silent on the issue of guilt until a conviction has been secured. Failure to do so can result in a miss-trial which could allow real criminals to walk. I simply don't believe the PM is ignorant of all this, she did what she did knowingly and should be held to account.

PM's, FM's and Attorney General's, these people should be setting a role model for society as to how our democracy is supposed to function. One of the corner stones of that democracy is "innocent until proven guilty" that replaced "trial by ordeal" in the UK around 1000yrs ago. So when I see my political "leaders" who routinely request judicial investigations standing in front of a mob pointing fingers, I KNOW they are deliberately subjecting that person to "trial by media".

OTOH, around the same time our PM was deliberately smearing Assange, our foreign minister was one of the first politicians on the planet to stand up and say the "free press" rights of Assange should be respected in the same way the rights of the three mainstream newspapers had been respected. Despite the fact the cables were "politically embarrassing" to the FM at the time, he correctly questioned why Assange was being universally attacked while the NYT, Guardian, and De-Speigal (sic?) were being praised by "reasonable people".

Aside from all that, libel is a civil suit not a criminal charge, you don't go to jail for it, you pay for the damages you caused. When you are being metaphorically burnt at the stake, it hardly matters if the "lies" were uttered out of malice or ignorance. Clarke took such risks so seriously he refused to pick up his knighthood for the two years it took him to find justice (in the form of a printed apology). If I were the Judge in Julian vs Julia I would not award financial damages, I would order the PM to hold a press conference and publicly apologize to Assange for the accusation, and I would do the same if Hicks were to sue Howard and/or Ruddock.

As for MC they're the "reasonable person" who believed the false accusations made by the PM.

Good

[JazzXP]

While I'm not a fan of Mr. Assange (quite the opposite really), I find the way he has been treated by our government absolutely deplorable. Especially when you consider how people like David Hicks (trained with terrorists) and Shappele Corby (convicted drug smuggler) have had the government behind them trying to get them home.

Re:Sue in Sweden

[dominux]

from wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Sweden words for defamation include:
ärekränkning
grovt förtal
förolämpning

and rape is våldtäkt. I call BS on the "reputational rape" claim. +5 informative indeed.

Not Knowing When to Quit

[Nom du Keyboard]

Julian Assange just doesn't know when to quit. Everyone is out to get him and he couldn't possibly be the reason for any of it.

Fugitives, on the run from the law

[wisnoskij]

How can a fugitive, on the run from the law, sue someone?
I imagine that a lawyer might be able to set up a case, but would he not be expected to show up to court?