Jonathan Holmes - previous host of "Media Watch" wrote
back in 2012 that -

Shane Dowling's Kangaroo Court of Australia and Larry
Pickering's The Pickering Post have at various times
and to varying degrees led the charge in pursuing the
Julia Gillard-Bruce Wilson affair. They were able to pursue
that alleged scandal with far more freedom than the
mainstream media, a mixture of fact, allegation, rumour,
and fantasy, secure in the knowledge that they are to all
intents and pusposes operating outside the sanction of the
Defamation Act.

"I've no doubt that Julia Gillard would love to sue all
of them - or rather she would love to be able to use the
threat of defamation suit to silence them. But I'm sure
she and her advisers are astute enough to realise the risk
is that attempting to do so would make matters far worse for
her."

As explained earlier - the difficulty for any blogger is to
make oneself heard in the cacophany of online voices.
So to stirrers such as these, notoriety is a precious asset.
The threat of legal action by a PM would be touted
triumphantly through the blogosphere.

The blogger might well ignore legal demands that they cease
and desist, in fact, they would probably relish the
opportunity - a civil court action would afford them
to represent themselves and to trot out documents and
witnesses in support of a defence of "truth." The
evidence may or may not convince a jury - but the mainstream
media would be able to report it all because it would
attract the privilege that attends court reports.

Even if a defamation action was successful there would be
precious little chance of recovering monetary damages
(because bloggers often don't have any money) and even if
one was silenced like a game of whack-a-mole - three others
would pop up in their place.

In the case of Mr Shorten - it is rather pathetic that old
claims are still being raised to try to smear the man.
Smacks of desperation.

Dear Steele,

I did watch the episode of Q&A in which Chris
Bowen appeared and I did comment on how impressed
I was with the man. He is a great communicator and
knows what he's talking about. However, as I've stated
I was totally charmed by Bill Shorten last night.
He seemed to bring back the old style of politics - that
is so very much needed in the current climate of the
jungle that is politics today. The are lessons for all
to be had in this kind of approach. Attack, slogans,
smear tactics no longer work or appeal to voters.

//What is public knowledge is generally what is not in dispute.// At one time it was public knowledge that the Earth was flat, it was not generally in dispute, except by a crazed bunch of radicals led by Copernicus. Being public knowledge, and not being in dispute did not make it true. Accepting an allegation as truth because it is being made by a nice person is unreasonable. Scandalises allegation made against any person will do little for their reputation, no matter who makes the allegation, some mud sticks.

//That BS while married knocked up another man's wife// Please provide evidence of that, otherwise withdraw it.
// and is rumoured to have knocked up another ALP staff member// That rumour came straight out of the office of desperate Liberal with plenty to hide Michaelia Cash. Shadow, I'm not going to play tit for tat, and throw up Joyce and Christensen.

// I have a copy of Mein Kampf, and Hitler is clearly mad. I'd be happy to reproduce some of his speeches. No harm in exposing idiots. And it's not illegal here.//. That could work on some Graham, but not others. As far as I know, neither Neville Chamberlain or Robert Menzies, two men I would consider intelligent to a degree, both did have ample opportunity post 1925, pre 1939, to read Mein Kampf and then declare Hitler as clearly mad, they both failed to do so, in fact they did just the opposite. We should not always hide behind the curtain of legality, sometimes we need to exercise some moral judgement as well. Steve Dickson is a case in point, the bloke did nothing illegal, yet the guy has been penalised for his moral behaviour. I have difficulty with the Brandis statement, "people have a right to be bigots". What did he mean by that, was he only referring to some old bloke that sits in his armchair swearing at the TV when there is something on about "gays". Or the bigot who gets out there, in your face about gays, inciting unintentional violence

Shorten is certainly no Brett Kavanaugh however it did not stop the leftist lying media and feminist from total lies and character assasination.

runner,

Which "leftist media?" and which feminists are you
referring to. Be more precise please. And supply us with
some evidence.

'Which "leftist media?" and which feminists are you
referring to. Be more precise please. And supply us with
some evidence.'

check with your doctor Foxy. You certainly are suffering short term memory loss.