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.
kaz
Guest
good article-id hate to be famous these days,my goodness. some quotes below frm a doco about the general effect of inflated selfopinion through net. " the cultural embarrassment of the net re alot of social media content" "all we have is a constant stream of hype & backlash..." "critics & bloggers jerking off"-not here though -been decent seems to rule here. cheers
BigAl
Guest
There is as much chance of controling this as there is controling illegal downloads.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Cheers Martin, you're right that free speech isn't explicit, but defamation laws do cover anything that is 'published', as in, broadcast to more than one person. And some of the "authors" are very open about who they are, some of them have pretty high profiles in fact. But you're right, the legal costs and also the fact defamation is very hard to prove in court mean that it probably won't come to that. Doesn't mean the laws shouldn't be respected. On the last point, that's absolutely what's happened unfortunately. The legitimate news rightly stayed out of it until the Hawks made public comment dismissing them, which of course meant the issue blew up even more. But it was a catch-22. Not saying anything gave the rumours more strength, especially as Buddy missed more games. "If the club aren't denying it, it must be true," is the attitude of far too many.
Steve
Guest
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.
Martin
Guest
Good article Michael. I strongly agree with your opinion, except as I understand it there is no right to freedom of speech within Australia, merely an implied right to political communication. As such there is no lawful protection for such cowards who willfully slander, libel or defame a person's character without basis. The flip side of this is that there is little that can be done by Franklin, the Hawks or the AFL. Even if the authors could easily be found, which is dubious, the final result would likely amount to an apology on Twitter and the payment of legal costs (for which they'd have no money to pay). Perhaps the fact that legitimate news agencies reported on the existence of such rumours exacerbated the problem and gave undue credence to these rumours?
EddyJ
Guest
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.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
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.
Australian Rules
Guest
No but at least they can be accountable.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I just heard an outrageous rumour that he and Wellingham are flat mates! Oh hang on, that's true.
micka
Guest
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.
micka
Guest
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?
brendan
Guest
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.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
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.
Strummer Jones
Guest
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.
LT80
Roar Pro
I hadn't heard about these rumours until I read your piece Michael.....
Australian Rules
Guest
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.
Kasey
Guest
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.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
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.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
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.
BigAl
Guest
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 !