Talking about something you know nothing about? You Buddy idiot
By Michael DiFabrizio, 22 Aug 2012 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, Buddy Franklin, Hawthorn Hawks, social media
Lance Franklin celebrates a goal in Hawthorn's 2011 final against Geelong (Slattery Images)
Related coverage
The sick fools who have taken to Twitter, Facebook and footy forums claiming there’s some big conspiracy behind why Buddy Franklin has been missing games need to wake up to themselves.
That these people have no hesitation in injuring a man’s reputation – a man they do not know and using words they have no evidence to support – is not only disturbing, it’s against our country’s defamation laws.
Even the keyboard warriors who cover their tracks by only using innuendo need to seriously think about the information they are spreading to the world.
Just by hinting at it you’re prompting people to jump on Google and see what all the fuss is about.
Yes, free speech exists in Australia. But when all you are doing is spreading something your uncle heard from his mate who heard from another mate who once umpired a VFL Reserves game, you probably aren’t qualified to speak as though you are Mike Sheahan himself.
The simple fact is, the rumour at the centre of the big conspiracy theory has actually been floating around for years.
Now, picture how many journalists in that time would’ve heard this exact rumour. Picture how many of them – backed by all the resources the scandal-loving media have at their disposal – dug around for even just a hint of evidence to support it.
If you doubt this would’ve happened, remember one thing.
This is the same media that thinks, “He said something about his opponent’s mum on the field? Give him the front page, back page and I want a report on Page 3!”
It is inconceivable that this “story” hasn’t been researched many times over by the media.
And guess what? They’ve found nothing.
If they’d found something to publish that doesn’t contravene defamation law, they would’ve gone to print with it by now. Instead, it’s nothing more than a petty rumour.
That’s not to say fans of the game can’t be suspicious. By all means question what’s presented to you.
But to do so in a public forum – to all your friends, followers or for whatever reason, random fans on the internet – when you yourself have no clue at all, sorry but it’s just not on.
While everyone loves a good conspiracy theory, and this one was particularly juicy, it’s no excuse to throw the laws of defamation out the window.
Sadly, though, Hawthorn (on Monday) and Franklin himself (yesterday) have been forced to speak out and rubbish the claims.
Ironically, their speaking out has elevated the rumours from mere internet chatter to something that has been addressed – albeit dismissively – by the club and player.
Now, journalists are now free to mention Buddy Franklin and the rumour in the same sentence.
The sick fools have won.
Michael DiFabrizio is completing his journalism degree. As an AFL writer, he has been an expert columnist at The Roar since 2009, and appeared in The Age and on ABC television and radio. Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
AFL articles
- Record low AFL crowd for GWS home match (209)
- Giant challenges ahead for Greater Western Sydney (200)
- Kevin Sheedy sticks by comments (143)
- My open-letter to AFL supporters (90)
- Long, cold winter ahead for Western Bulldogs (86)
- Why we should ease up on the Giants (81)
- A conference system won’t provide AFL equality (73)
- JOHNNO: The bump’s not dead, and the umps are OK too (31)
- Essendon AFL player stabbed, two arrested (8)
- Pies star might miss rest of AFL season
- Australian rules football and improving Indigenous relations (30)
- Round 8 wrap: Melbourne show heart, Collingwood send flag message (4)
- Essendon continue to bomb out (34)
- Why the easybeats can be the hardest to defeat (7)
- Australian rules football and improving Indigenous relations (30)
- Round 8 wrap: Melbourne show heart, Collingwood send flag message (4)
- Essendon continue to bomb out (34)
- Why the easybeats can be the hardest to defeat (7)
- My open-letter to AFL supporters (90)
- A conference system won’t provide AFL equality (73)
- Adelaide Crows vs St Kilda: AFL live scores, blog (57)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- AFL, Buddy Franklin, Hawthorn Hawks, social media

August 22nd 2012 @ 8:21am
swannies05 said | August 22nd 2012 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more Michael. I thought Buddy’s impromptu interview yesterday after the Hawks’ training was brilliant. He was honest, laid back and hopefully got through to all of those people out there who started/supported this rumour. Being a Swans fan, but also having a soft spot for Buddy (and also maybe having invested a fair bit on him earlier in the season to win the Coleman), I hope he kicks 10 this week in a losing side.
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:28am
langou said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
It certainly was a gutsy effort from Buddy to be back at training two days after being so ill he couldn’t even make a phone call.
Also I think articles like this are just fueling the rumors and increasing the curiosity of people.
August 22nd 2012 @ 8:50am
micka said | August 22nd 2012 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Speculation isn’t defamation.
BTW I hadn’t heard the rumours, but the way your article skirted around actually saying what they were (in the interests of informing people?) made me go look them up from far less reputable sources.
August 22nd 2012 @ 1:13pm
Michael DiFabrizio said | August 22nd 2012 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Speculation isn’t defamation? Well, I’d be careful about saying that!
Here’s a little guideline about what defamation actually is: http://www.law.uts.edu.au/comslaw/factsheets/defamation.html
Now, as an example, if someone in a public forum speculated that you were a rapist or a drug dealer, would you not feel as though that “lowers your reputation in the eyes of members of the community”? Would that not “injure your professional reputation” or “expose you to ridicule”?
You wouldn’t turn around and say, “It’s alright mate, you were only speculating”, that’s for sure.
August 22nd 2012 @ 4:00pm
micka said | August 22nd 2012 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
I’d just allege that he was a kiddy fiddler….. problem solved.
To be honest, if you haven’t done enough in they eyes of the community to make such an accusation inherently ridiculous then you have problems. Most of the time, where there is smoke there is fire.
If you PROVE the speculation as incorrect you should promptly destroy the accuser in a court of law and take all they have.
I’m not saying Buddy has done anything wrong at all. But people have the right to discuss extreme abnormalities in behaviour without a defamation lawsuit smashed over their heads by a Club’s PR department. Especially when those departments are known to be flexible with the truth anyway.
If the accusations are drug related for example why not get the bloke tested?
August 22nd 2012 @ 11:43pm
EddyJ said | August 22nd 2012 @ 11:43pm | Report comment
That’s right, but it’s also anything at all that ‘lowers your reputation in the eyes of members of the community’, even if what is being published in the media is true and factually correct. I haven’t read what’s been alleged against Buddy Franklin, but defamation law is based around how many people come across the ‘defamatory’ material and how it affects their reputation, usually in terms of how it affected them monetarily. Franklin can take action with the current defamation laws if he wanted to, but then it would be a matter of finding out who caused the defamation (this can be and has been done in the internet age), testing it in court to see if defamation laws have been broken and, it the jury of three agrees, then a subsequent court will assess damages and compensation.
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:26am
MattRusty said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:26am | Report comment
STOP PRESS – people spread gossip on internet. Have you just woken up?
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:30am
Australian Rules said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Good article Michael.
The rise of social media with all its mediums seems to have left accountability floundering back in the 90s. These days, everyone is a potential “journalist” – yet none of the ethical or legal frameworks apply.
We’re the poorer for it.
August 22nd 2012 @ 12:12pm
Holbrook said | August 22nd 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Hahaha, because paid journalists are always ethical!
August 22nd 2012 @ 4:18pm
Australian Rules said | August 22nd 2012 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
No but at least they can be accountable.
August 22nd 2012 @ 11:52am
Docker from the hills said | August 22nd 2012 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Why should some speculation about football not be discussed on the usual forums whilst its okay to speculate about other aspects?
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
August 22nd 2012 @ 11:56am
Australian Rules said | August 22nd 2012 @ 11:56am | Report comment
It’s different when the “speculation” concerns someone participating in activities that are against laws or rules…something that can affect them commerically.
It’s also different when the “speculation” isn’t just 2 guys chatting at a pub…it’s published repeatedly on the internet for all to see, with no accountability.
I realise we can’t change it…but we are the poorer for it.
August 22nd 2012 @ 1:16pm
BigAl said | August 22nd 2012 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Aaaaaahhhh! – so thats what the rumours were !
In this age we live in everyone is going to have to get used ot this sort of thing, as Docker says.
All we can hope for is that in the end truth wins out !
August 22nd 2012 @ 1:31pm
Kasey said | August 22nd 2012 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Thanks for spilling the beans AR.:)
I’m not an AFL nut, so I dont have a twitter feed filled with footy-heads gossiping like old women.
August 22nd 2012 @ 1:41pm
Australian Rules said | August 22nd 2012 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Oh the irony…
I feel for him. These are awful and unfounded rumours which have never been proven to have any credibility…but yes, they were doing the rounds.
August 22nd 2012 @ 12:12pm
LK said | August 22nd 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Isn’t the point of social media to cover topics traditional media won’t? Anything from idle gossip, to the quality of the chicken parm at the pub on the corner gets a run. Big deal! Surely people see it for what it is. If the talk has been around for ages, then Buddy isn’t defamed by this latest round of speculation.
Is traditional media beyond reproach anyway? Didn’t MMM publish the rumour, in some form, on their Facebook page?
August 22nd 2012 @ 1:17pm
Michael DiFabrizio said | August 22nd 2012 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Of course social media has the power to cover topics the traditional media don’t. But it does not mean those who publish material in social media are immune to the rules that apply to those who publish in the traditional media.
If you are broadcasting to more than one person, you are committing the act of publishing. Even if you aren’t aware you are.
As for MMM, I think (from memory) they re-published a tweet from Jason Akermanis, who was only re-tweeting what someone said to him. Defamation law doesn’t excuse you because you’re just saying what someone else said, so if Buddy wanted to sue MMM – or Aker for that matter – he’d probably have a decent case.
August 22nd 2012 @ 12:43pm
Kasey said | August 22nd 2012 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Publish the rumour in the Rugby tab, almost nobody goes there. publish in the Soccer/football tab and everybody and his dog will read it!
August 22nd 2012 @ 12:43pm
Strummer Jones said | August 22nd 2012 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
” it’s nothing more than a petty rumour”.
Then why are you and other journalists writing about it? I would have never known anything about these “rumours” had you and other journos not brought it to my attention. When I first read about it in the Age, I did think that there “could” be an ounce of truth to the ‘rumours’ that were now being brought to my attention, because they explained that the rumours were rife.
My rule would be to ignore these “rumours” if you don’t believe they have an ounce of truth or at least not dignify them with a responding article such as this one, rather than writing an article that complains about ‘false rumours’. Don’t forget that some AFL ‘rumours’ that never make it to press are actually true, so just because this one appears to be way off target does not mean I will instantly dismiss all future rumours in the future, especially those ‘promoted’ in the press.
August 22nd 2012 @ 1:21pm
Michael DiFabrizio said | August 22nd 2012 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Strummer, it’s being written about because it’s gotten way too out of control. Perhaps if Hawthorn or Buddy didn’t speak out, the media would’ve remain (rightly) silent. But someone had to stand up to the idiots because, frankly, it was all over the place. On my Twitter feed, I’m not talking about one or two people talking about it, I’m talking 40+, maybe more, and many of them repeatedly making reference to it. The media (mostly) have only stepped in to report the Hawthorn and Buddy comments, or to denounce the idiots. Which is the best possible way to handle it.
Ideally, it wouldn’t get to this point. But when all the idiots are thinking is, “If the club isn’t denying it, it must be true”, the only way to address their ridiculous claims was to go public, even if it means more people finding out. Damned if they did, damned if they didn’t.
August 22nd 2012 @ 1:51pm
Strummer Jones said | August 22nd 2012 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Hmmmm that’s a lot of people spreading the rumour. Are you 100% sure it isn’t true? I’m starting to believe it really is now and am trying to convince myself it is true
In all seriousness, I agree its a tough one but it does look like a case of the “Streisand Effect” here.
August 22nd 2012 @ 1:43pm
LT80 said | August 22nd 2012 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
I hadn’t heard about these rumours until I read your piece Michael…..
August 22nd 2012 @ 3:28pm
Michael DiFabrizio said | August 22nd 2012 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
Unfortunately LT, as of today the issue had been covered by The Age here, by the AFL website here and here, and the Herald Sun here, here and here. And that’s just (some of) the print and online media. For better or worse, it’s out there now. And while yes, my piece can come off a bit ironic, the fact is these idiots need to be told what they are doing is defamatory and injures a man’s reputation. If no one else is going to say it, I’m more than happy to.
August 22nd 2012 @ 4:10pm
micka said | August 22nd 2012 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Why are they idiots? Am I an idiot for speculating that Ben Cousins was using? Turns out the opposite. I was right all along.
Is it speculation to suggest footy players can be irresponsible on the drink? No. Chip Liberatore proved otherwise.
It is speculation until it is proven right or wrong. To say that Buddy Franklin IS doing a particular illegal thing is dead wrong but to question whether abherant behaviours may be due to this, that or the other is hardly illegal.
As the masses are we not the man’s reputation? If the Hawks are silent on the matter it directly gives the rumour credence.
August 22nd 2012 @ 5:06pm
Michael DiFabrizio said | August 22nd 2012 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
micka, they are idiots because they aren’t just speculating on their own or with a mate, they are publishing their speculations to the world without basis. If you were speculating on Ben Cousins (in a public forum) when zero evidence was available to support your claim then of course you’d be part of the problem. On the other hand, if you can prove without doubt what you are hinting at is true, then you have the full protection of the law behind you.
Lastly, on “if the Hawks are silent on the matter it directly gives the rumour credence”. That’s true, but doing the complete opposite has the exact same effect. Going public saying “This Buddy rumour is ridiculous” alerts the entire footy world to the fact there have been rumours about Buddy. Then everyone starts to wonder if they are true…
They’re f**ked if they do and f**ked if they don’t, so you can’t use that to support your stance at all.
August 23rd 2012 @ 2:26am
Steve said | August 23rd 2012 @ 2:26am | Report comment
That’s the big difference- it’s being published. I actually started reading this article expecting to disagree with you, but I can’t: if it’s published, then you are in traditional ‘libel’ country, same as if you’d taken out an ad or an article in the paper.
August 22nd 2012 @ 3:59pm
brendan said | August 22nd 2012 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
Good on you Michael for writing this article.A fundamental right in our society is accusations mean nothing unless there proven.Buddy is a champion ive heard rumours now and before about him but words mean nothing until some form of judiciary in this case the Afl tribunal judge the accusation.There is a prevailing attitude in many areas of society that an accusation is an affirmation .Sadly we live in an era where people forget the basic tenet of the law innocent until proven guilty and an allegation is nothing more than an opinion.