It seems that Mr Trjulja went and saw "The Senior Australian Defamation QC" (what ever the flying fuck that is) who advised him that [at 17] "the posting is of and concerning to my reputation" (sidenote: any SC/QC who is advising a client, especially considering the barrister/solicitor structure, of this specificity needs to be instantly slapped with an ethics violation and/or struck off)
Maybe he should of seen a real one first. I don't know maybe one who is actually a QC, a member of the Victorian Bar, a Senior Fellow of the Melbourne Law School. Who is also the esteemed author of three editions of The Law of Defamation and the Internet (2001, 2005 and 2010) and of Collins on Defamation (2014) which are tomes used by all Australian solicitors, law schools, and barristers.
>>>What, pray tell, in the blog post is defamatory?
As far as I can tell, nothing at all..
Though the Victorian Supreme Court in regards to Defamation cases could read (and normally do) totally different.
Though as your learned counsel would no doubt explain to you (waves at Marc) this whole post is actually nice, succinct and could probably do with more snark. :)
Not unlike the defense pleading in this recent Queensland (another state of Australia) case of defamation where the plaintiff lost.. [ here's the article] [here's the hilarious defense pleading(pdf).. I lost it at "BS reality" in headings]
Though this from the judgement shows that the Streisand Effect is also alive and well in Oz too ;)
"The plaintiff also seeks vindication through an award of damages for the so called “grapevine effect” which concerns the natural and probable result of the original publication... The plaintiff points to the fact that after he filed his claim the matter was referred to in newspaper reports, professional journals and on a website that has a received more than 4000 hits. He says he is devastated and humiliated by these developments. In this case the “grapevine effect” is limited because, as noted earlier, the circumstances of the original publication were such that the natural and probable result was that it would be confined to the plaintiff, Sally and Jarrad.
It was the plaintiff who, by making the claim, called in an airstrike on his own position.[emphasis added]"
I can guarantee you that if a survey was done of ALL of New Zealand sex workers, and Australian sex workers in NSW & VIC 99.9999% (and there is over 5000) of them would NOT be human trafficking victims..
It seems the USA criminalising the industry is the problem.
But hey what do I know, I only consult and volunteer pro-bono to a fair amount of sex workers and their industry organisations.
Actually it does work to the point that the black market cannot compete AT ALL and its easier and safer for the consumers and workers. They are not totally driven away but they are de minimus compared to the whole.
Your tropes do not stand up to actual reality, and nearly every single one of them has been destroyed by factual data from real life examples that are currently operating in a HUGE amount of countries world wide.
Further to above, I have just had a quick scan/read of your blog.
For a pro Se plaintiff you have done well for yourself, though the insanity and stressors are normal. You need to now sit back and take it easy.
As for your former employer..... well based on what you have supplied you have ample ability now to have a nice word with them and maybe the FWA as well. I wish you luck in that regard, though you shouldn't need much luck. Just remember, amicability and compromise works better and in practice might be the best interest of yourself for future employment.
Your case though re google has IMO major concerns and ramifications that go beyond yourself. Listen to your silk and solicitors, take there advise and be pragmatic, and look to your future not to the quantum of damages (that's not going to be decided for a long while and might be in our vernacular "bugger all")
>> I think Australia does need a right to be forgotten law. I hadn't thought of it that way but that is a great idea.
No it doesn't. EVER.
No matter the chilling effect of enacting that law would have, believe me when I tell you that just because you have had a lot more positive supporters than negative in no way states what the actual legal fraternity actually thinks of your case.
It is wrong on a few levels, and I hope you realise and your solicitors have advised you that the SC of South Aust is NOT the last step in this process.
This decision is being looked at very closely and people are highly concerned. Your case is not a Gutnick, your case IMO is more damaging and stop putting words into your silks mouth, they don't appreciate it and will now most likely be questioned over it. *shakes head in wonder at stupidity of laypersons* Also your case is NOT precedent, hopefully though it becomes more obiter soon.
Good luck in lobbying the Govt, though be aware myself (who is actually an Australian) will be doing it too to stop your egocentric attempts.
>>> I won and Techdirt has zero influence over me, Google, common law or Australian legislation.
Really? you think Techdirt (in as far as the people who actually write for it) care about humiliating you? they are writing about the stupidity and egocentric nature of your case. As for the rest of your comment the phrase "lol wut" comes to mind.
I wish you luck in your next lobbying endevours, though don't expect it to be as easy sailing as you think.