Defamation, Deepfaking, and Desperation: AKA, Australian Politics
As the 2024 President of the Griffith University Law Society, I can proudly say that deepfaking my competition was not incorporated into my election strategy. In fact, such behavior would have been a direct violation of the GULS Constitution. Shockingly, the same cannot be said for the Federal Election.
Defamation and Destruction
Photo by Miguel Henriques on Unsplash
Last-ditch mediation talks between Senator Linda Reynolds, her former staffer Brittany Higgins, and fiancé David Sharaz have collapsed, failing to reach a settlement ahead of a defamation trial. Senator Reynolds claims her reputation was damaged by social media posts from Higgins and Sharaz, which criticized her response to Higgins' rape allegation against former colleague Bruce Lehrmann, an allegation Lehrmann has consistently denied.
The posts at the centre of the defamation case accused Reynolds of mishandling the situation, leading her to seek damages for the harm to her reputation.
Outside the David Malcolm Justice Centre, Reynolds confirmed that no settlement had been reached and that the matter had been adjourned. She expressed her desire for a resolution, stating,
"I have had high hopes for many months that we can finally settle, for all of those who have been damaged and wounded by this saga over the last three years."
Reynolds criticized the $2.4 million settlement awarded to Higgins by the Attorney-General and indicated potential legal action to contest the payout. Reynolds' lawyer, Martin Bennett, reiterated the importance of Justice Lee's findings and urged all parties to accept them to move forward.
Read more in Emma Kirk’s recent article.
Deepfaking – Is It Legal in Politics?
Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash
Appearing before a parliamentary inquiry this week, Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers delved into the contentious issue of deepfake political ads. In a candid and thought-provoking testimony, Rogers expressed his concerns about these digitally manipulated videos, where one politician falsely portrays another. Despite his clear stance that such ads are ethically problematic, he acknowledged a surprising legal loophole: as long as these ads meet certain regulatory requirements, including the disclosure of information about the person authorizing the ad, they are technically lawful.
Rogers' comments underscore the growing challenges of regulating political content in an era of rapid technological advancement. The legality of deepfake ads, despite their potential to mislead and manipulate voters, reveals a critical gap in current legislation. This situation calls for urgent attention to ensure that the integrity of the electoral process is preserved. As deepfake technology becomes more advanced, striking a balance between protecting free speech and preventing political deception is more crucial than ever.
Ange Lavoipierre has published a critical analysis of the above, available to read here.
Bad advice from jeremy
Today I’m going to tell you the best strategies to get elected as Prime minister:
Promise to put coca cola in water fountains
The classic primary school class leader tactic… still works now. I just would give respect to anyone who stood in front of the country and said this.
Obnoxious amounts of posters
How else would you make someone vote for you? Spend millions of dollars on unsustainable posters. Screw hearing what you will do or your values, I just want a face on paper with no meaning.
Dissing your opposition on TikTok
“Authorized by the ____”, is my favorite line to ever hear after watching a monstrosity with no facts or sane minded thoughts.