A Melbourne Man Is Suing Twitter For Defamation

Last year, media personality Marieke Hardy found herself in trouble after she tweeted a link to a self-authored blog post containing defamatory comments regarding one Joshua Meggitt of Melbourne. Hardy, it seems, wasn't keen on a long legal stoush and settled out of court for a reported $15,000. The win obviously went straight to Meggitt's head, as he's now set his lawyer loose on Twitter itself.

The $US7 billion company was given its notice on Thursday by Stuart Gibson, Meggitt's laywer, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. As the publisher of the offending tweet and facilitator of its subsequent retweetings, Gibson and Meggitt believe Twitter should be considered in some way responsible also.

According to Gibson, "anyone involved in the publication can be sued", though the duo won't be chasing followers of Hardy's who saw fit to give the tweet additional airtime (and apparently said things "far worse" than the original tweet).

If the case goes ahead, it could very well be heard under Australian law and, if Meggitt succeeds, it will set an interesting precedent for non-traditional internet publishers going forward.

It's not known how much Meggitt is seeking, but I imagine Twitter has a lot of money to throw at its legal team to make this go away, if it takes it seriously at all.


Image (modified): Triple J / Twitter.



    I doubt Meggitt will succeed somehow, Twitter has access to more than enough funds to hire serious legal clout. If he's not careful he'll end up losing his windfall and owing money. He should've stopped while he was ahead.

    maybe if it were twitter who wrote and published

    dare i say if common sense does not prevail i will be crying.

    hey, i know, lets blame the paper maker and wood chipper who provided the pulp that created teh paper for the blasphemy that was spewed in teh tabloids by a big magazine compnay... might just sue god for creating trees that allowed paper to be created so that the press could print something (if indeed god exists)

    so lets blame the medium for allowing defamation, totally

      Except Twitter *did* publish it. They conveyed it. They presented it to the world. Legally, it's the same as a newspaper publishing something defamatory. But you know, on the Internet the whole 'INFORMATION IS FREE!!1!' vibe is all-encompassing. Legalities still apply, though most bloggers don't give 'em a thought.

      Simon Reidy - Couching any opposition to Hardy as a fear of intelligent, outspoken women is weak. People can - shock horror - find her relentless self-promotion tiresome, quite aside from their views on gender politics.

    This comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted.
    Troll somewhere else.

    I'm intrigued: Who are these people?

    I honestly can not stand that chick. The fact she defamed the wrong person to begin with should say something about her intelligence.

    Meggitt has a chance of winning. There is a precedence here. Another Melbourne man (Joe Gutnick) sued a US publication for an article written in a US magazine, and because it was freely available to download in Australia, he was able to prove it was defaming him within the community in which he lived. He won.

      The fact she defamed the wrong person? She was simply highlighting what a fuckwad he is, which should be fairly self-evident now, given the guy is trying to sue Twitter! :)

      Like her or not, she's one of the bravest and funniest celebrity chicks on Twitter with a quick wit and extremely high intelligence. The fact that you can't see that actually says a lot about your intelligence. Or perhaps you're just intimidated by outspoken intelligent women?

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now