What is defamation??

Defamation is the area of law that is concerned with a person’s damaged reputation. The law states that a defamatory publication is any false imputation concerning a person, or a member of his family, whether living or dead, by which the reputation of that person is likely to be injured or he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or other persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise him.

The first step involved in a defamation case is the plaintiff giving material and evidence of their imputation. For a publication to be considered defamatory by law ordinary people have to view the publication as being defamatory. The second step involves identifying whether the person claimed to be defamed is in the publication this can be indirectly or directly. The third step is proving that the defendant is actually involved in the publication of the defamatory material and that more than one other person other than the plaintiff viewed the publication. The defences of the meaning behind the defendants published article are then taken into consideration. Defences include justification, truth, contextual truth, absolute privilege, public interest and fair report, qualified privilege, honest opinion and intent. The final step of a defamation case is for the judge and jury to assess whether the plaintiff has been defamed and what the payout will be. I will be focusing on the Rebel Wilson vs Bauer media case as it is a great example that shows the impact that defamation can have on a person and just how serious the payouts can be. 

Rebel Wilson Background

Rebel Wilson is an Australian actress, writer, comedian, and producer. She first began getting noticed as she started appearing in many shows including Pizza on SBS and other comedy shows like the wedge. As well as this she wrote, produced and played the main role in Bogan Pride. She then went on to win the Tropfest best actress award for her role in Bargain the following year. Wilson then became extremely successful in the Hollywood film industry following her success with the 2015 screen hit Pitch perfect 2 with her role as Fat Amy. Her triumph then faded shortly after allegations that were made by several articles by Bauer media accusing her of being a serial liar. In may of 2015 Bauer Media published 8 articles articulating Rebels persona that what she previously said about her childhood was fictitious. 

The main article that really caused a lot of debate and that people were interested in was the Women’s Day article titled ‘Just Who Is The REAL Rebel’. The article explained that she had lied about her age, real name and upbringing. Some claims that Bauer media accused Wilson of doing included;

• Wilson had lied about her age being 29 when she was in fact born in 1979 and would therefore be 36 years old. 
• Her real name was Melody Elizabeth Bounds and not Rebel Wilson. 
• She lied about having a dog and her parents raising and training dogs.
• Wilson had publicly lied about her going on a holiday trip in a caravan around Australia when she had not done so. 
• She lied about living in Zimbabwe for a year and that she was brought up in a disadvantaged suburb of Sydney to dramatise her upbringing and to make her childhood more interesting for executives. 

A lot of the published articles with these imputations went viral which caused a lot of Wilson’s potential new roles in Hollywood to be cancelled and not considered as Hollywood directors consumed the articles. 

“Was it wrong of me to pledge that the money received from the case was going to good causes?? To me, after working tirelessly day and night to rebuild my career, I thought it was the right thing to do.” – Rebel Wilson 

Rebel Wilson sued Bauer media for defamation in the Supreme Court of Victoria in 2016. Wilson, the plaintiff alleged that her reputation and credit had suffered and been injured due to the imputations within the published articles written by the Bauer media group. She also claimed she had been humiliated, embarrassed and lost immense amounts of job opportunities. Wilson claimed she had been fired from her roles in the movies Trolls and Kung Fu Panda. It was also confirmed that Wilson got sacked from two DreamWork films and she claimed she had to beg to film studios for acting roles after the articles were published about her. Wilson said that the chief executive of DreamWorks, Jeffrey Katzenberg told her bluntly “unfortunately you’re just now too divisive to be in this movie, it’s a family movie”.  

“I think it’s no doubt that this Woman’s Day article fuelled an international media firestorm that was terribly upsetting to me and my family,” – Rebel Wilson

They decided against this as it would have been too problematic. This confirmed that the publisher knew what they were doing and knew it would have caused problems for Wilson. Bauer media also went on to then publish several more articles containing similar facts about Wilson that they knew were false and problematic. Bauer media defended these claims by saying it was in public interest to know and they had qualified privilege to publish the articles. Other defences to Wilsons claims included, the points made in the articles were not likely to be taken seriously, the facts were trivial, were substantially true, not important and had little value. They also disputed the fact of Wilson suffering from insomnia and getting skin outbreaks by using evidence in a photo that Wilson posted online of her smiling and showing her skin to be in flawless condition. Wilson defended this by saying “Obviously if I posted photos of me crying slumped against a wall that would only fuel the fire.” 

The Bauer media company was convicted for defaming Wilson as they didn’t fully investigate the allegations that were given to them by someone who knew Rebel prior to her fame. On the 15th of June 2017, a six person jury and justice John Dixon ruled that the Bauer Media group had indeed been wrong in justifying that Wilson was a serial liar. 

“Bauer Media had, I infer, sufficient appreciation of the risk of reputational damage to the plaintiff and I am satisfied that it did not care whether the plaintiff suffered reputational damage as it pursued its own corporate interests.” – Justice John Dixon

In September of 2017 Wilson was awarded $650000 in general damages as well as $3917412 in special damages (plus 182,448.61) interest) for the lost damages she had experienced due to the articles. This totalled to around 4.7 million dollars which was the largest ever defamation payout in Australia at the time. Wilson told the jury that she sued primarily to protect other Australian actors and celebrities from being targeted by the magazines.

“I’m looking forward to helping out some great Australian charities and supporting the Oz film industry with the damages I’ve received.” – Rebel Wilson

After the payout Bauer media immediately appealed to the court. In early June 2018 the court found that they couldn’t actually prove that Wilson missed out on film contracts as a result of the articles. Wilson was forced to return nearly 90% of her original payout of $4.7 million and give back $4.1 million leaving her with $600000.

Conclusion

During the case Justice Dixon strongly criticised Bauer Media for failing to properly investigate the claims about Wilson, and for publishing them despite knowing they were false. If adequate background research had taken place by the journalist that conducted the articles it wouldn’t have been a case and Rebel Wilson’s career and reputation wouldn’t have suffered and the lawsuit would have been avoided. However the question stands whether it is actually the journalists fault or if it lies on the publishers who are constantly looking for news that will sell and will cause controversy even if it’s at the expense of someone else’s reputation. 

‘I was just doing my job’: Ex-Woman’s Day journalist defends Rebel Wilson article

Some things journalists and publishers need to keep in consideration before publishing articles include;

• If the information be provided is accurate and contains evidence that it is true 
• Courts can award very high damages in defamation cases even though the limit for non – economic loss is $400000.
• If the information provider reputable and reliable
• Whether the claims made in the article can be verified.

Refrences

Bryne, E., 2020. Rebel Wilson’s Legal Battle Ends As High Court Rejects Appeal Over Defamation Payout – ABC News. [online] Abc.net.au. Available at: <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-16/rebel-wilson-loses-high-court-bid/10503644> [Accessed 2 May 2020].

Hollier, R., 2020. Defamation Law In Australia — The Law Project. [online] The Law Project. Available at: <https://www.thelawproject.com.au/defamation-law-in-australia> [Accessed 2 May 2020].

Thenewsmanual.net. 2020. Defamation In Australia. [online] Available at: <” target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html&gt; [Accessed 2 May 2020].

SBS News. 2020. Rebel Wilson Loses 90 Per Cent Of $4.7M Defamation Payout. [online] Available at: <https://www.sbs.com.au/news/rebel-wilson-loses-90-per-cent-of-4-7m-defamation-payout> [Accessed 2 May 2020].

Pearson, M., 2007. The Journalist’s Guide To Media Law. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Sbs.com.au. 2020. Rebel Wilson | Bogan Pride On SBS. [online] Available at: <https://www.sbs.com.au/shows/boganpride/cast/detail/id/8> [Accessed 2 May 2020].

3AW. 2020. ‘Come On, Australia’: Angry Rebel Wilson Vows To Appeal In Twitter Rant. [online] Available at: <” target=”_blank”>https://www.3aw.com.au/come-on-australia-angry-rebel-wilson-vows-to-appeal-in-twitter-rant/> [Accessed 2 May 2020].

Margan, M., 2020. Angry Rebel Wilson Vows To Appeal In Online Twitter Rant. [online] Mail Online. Available at: <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5846177/Rebel-Wilson-vows-appeal-defamation-payout-Twitter-rant.html> [Accessed 2 May 2020].

WOMAN’S DAY. 2020. Only In Woman’S Day: Just Who Is The Real Rebel Wilson. [online] Available at: <https://web.archive.org/web/20150521080051/http://www.womansday.com.au/celebrity/australian-celebrities/will-the-real-rebel-wilson-please-stand-up-12574> [Accessed 2 May 2020].

Supremecourt.vic.gov.au. 2020. Wilson V Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 521 | The Supreme Court Of Victoria. [online] Available at: <https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/court-decisions/judgments-and-sentences/judgment-summaries/wilson-v-bauer-media-pty-ltd-2017-vsc> [Accessed 2 May 2020].

Younger, E., 2020. Rebel Wilson Tells Court She Was Sacked By Dreamworks Head After Magazine Articles – ABC News. [online] Abc.net.au. Available at: <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-25/rebel-wilson-tells-court-she-was-sacked-by-dreamworks-head/8557108> [Accessed 2 May 2020].

Younger, E., 2020. Rebel Wilson Defamation Trial: Magazines’ Defence Points To Social Media Posts To Refute Actress’s Claims Of Stress – ABC News. [online] Abc.net.au. Available at: <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-26/rebel-wilson-social-media-smiling-court-hears/8561008> [Accessed 2 May 2020].

Abc.net.au. 2020. Rebel Wilson Breaks Down In Court As Former Woman’s Day Journalist Defends Story – ABC News. [online] Available at: <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-06/rebel-wilson-womens-day-journalist-stands-by-story/8593720> [Accessed 2 May 2020].

Daily, T., 2020. Rebel Wilson To Support Aussie Film Industry With Record Payout. [online] The New Daily. Available at: <https://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/2017/09/13/rebel-wilson-court-case-win/> [Accessed 2 May 2020].

LegalVision. 2020. What Are The Defences To Defamation? | Legalvision. [online] Available at: <https://legalvision.com.au/defences-to-defamation/> [Accessed 3 May 2020].