Contextual briefing:

Too many journalists and publishers suffer from ‘libel chill’ - the phenomenon where reporters and their news executives become overcautious in their work for fear of defamation action. -Mark Pearson, The Journalists Guide to Media Law, p.240

For most, ‘chill’ is just a buzzword. Do not be fooled - the ‘chilling’ effect is a literal physiological condition suffered by journalists in the face of a legal rodgering; testicles actually shrink up into internal depths of journalistic cowardice (I’m yet to work out the female equivalent, but I’m certain it has something to do with ovaries).

Here’s my backstory: felt hard done by after a particular experience, I hit the keyboard and spat libel all over the screen in a scathing review. While breaking a few pencil leads in your journal is an effective way to get things off your chest, I was not yet satisfied. I planned publish this bitch, exposing my injustice suffered for all the community to see.

And heck, I would’ve gone through with it, had the following week’s Journalism Law unit not enlightened me on the ins and outs of defamation. Yes, you read correctly: the contents of a prescribed reading proved immediately useful (degree just paid for itself).

I ambitiously sought consultation with the oracle. Problem with oracles is that they transcend time, space, and consultation hours. I settled for his roommate. I was advised take a cold bath - to chill out.

Wait, what’s this? You’re accusing me of exploiting the tragic premise of journalistic self-censorship to make my point? Right you may be, but my astounding use of parallels is too vivid to ignore:

self serving jerk-off + vitriolic rant = potential defamation

quality journalist + compromising scoop = potential defamation

See, same outcome. My math trumps your accusations.

Okay, so my math sucks. Logical fallacies may work when pleading your case to the old lady on the train, but all you academics are a little harder to out-craft, aren’t you? Nevertheless, this world of publishing is some scary shit. The fact that I could be sued for speaking my mind is nut chilling indeed. While honest opinion is a defense, you may have dish out the mula to prove it. And if the truth defense is all you’ve got, convincing the courts the complainant is a bona fide douchebag may be harder than you think.

Consider the following nuts-on-ice scenario: NRL player Andrew Ettingshausen sued when the following photograph was published in HQ magazine...

Between his legs in the grainy, shadowy photograph was a shape the court decided was ‘capable of being interpreted as his penis’. Ettinghausen sued, claiming the photograph held him up to ridicule and compromised his positing as a fashion model and a junior development officer with the League.

He won $100 000, down from $350 000 after appeal. The court found the photograph’s publication implied ‘he was the sort of person who would allow nude photographs of himself to be taken’. The fact that someone can earn 100 000 grand just for letting their cock hang is mind boggling. By that math, and the amount of times I've had my nuts published online – I’m not talking silhouettes here either – I’m owed in excess of 2.7 million dollars. It’s privileged opportunism out of control.

So how do us little guys - journos AND defamed - get OUR up-and comings, huh? Neither of us have the dough for litigation, and that’s stalemate in my books. Most would have us believe ‘chilling’ is the only option, but where in the name of Federation Square is the fun in that? What’s the point of having testicles if you’re not going to use them?

Take a leaf from the forefathers, who settled disputes with the pistol duel.You got a beef with a journo getting libelous on yo’ arse? Dust off that 12 gauge and man up for some John Woo style gun play. At least this way, us broke journos whose back’s publishers don’t got, have a say in the matter too.

A word of warning with the old schoolers though, they take this ‘freedom of the press’ stuff pretty seriously. Litigation just ain’t in their vocabulary. You cop some libel from anyone over 60, I recommend you take it on the chin.

There’s a good reason Laurie Oakes has never been summoned...

Roll mouse cursor over picture to see the second part of this cartoon