The Streisand effect': Judge suggests rethink in mullet defamation case
The Sydney judge presiding over an extraordinary defamation battle about a teenager's striking mullet has questioned whether the case has backfired by attracting a wave of embarrassing publicity.
Ali Ziggi Mosslmani, also known as "Ziggy", inspired a series of hair-themed memes last year after he was photographed dancing at an 18th birthday party in Hurstville.
The picture of his luxuriant locks went viral and Mr Mosslmani is suing Daily Mail Australia, The Daily Telegraph and KIIS radio for defamation, claiming they subjected him to ridicule in articles about the photo that appeared online and in print.
At a preliminary hearing on Thursday, District Court Judge Judith Gibson noted the case had attracted significant publicity.
"One hears talk of 'the Streisand effect' and that is very much the case", Judge Gibson said.
The Streisand effect - a nod to a 2003 feud in which entertainer Barbra Streisand tried to suppress photos of her Malibu mansion - is a term used to describe cases in which attempts to hide or censor information backfire by drawing more attention to it.
Mr Mosslmani's barrister, Roger Rasmussen, told the court his client's school had "asked him to leave" because of the publicity and he was now being home schooled.
In an amended claim filed in court on Thursday, Mr Mosslmani argues the articles defame him by suggesting he is "a stupid person" because "mullet" is a colloquial word for stupid.
"Who are these people who know that mullet means stupid?" Judge Gibson said.
"It is slang. Mark Twain used it," Mr Rasmussen said.
Mr Rasmussen said some of the articles had referred to Mr Mosslmani as either a "stunned mullet" or a mullet.
Ms Mosslmani also argues some of the articles suggest he "deserves to be an object of ridicule because of his haircut".
Larina Mullins, acting for The Daily Telegraph, said the case involved "utterly absurd" allegations.
"In my submission the only thing that is ridiculous and stupid in this matter is this claim," Ms Mullins said.
Judge Gibson gave Mr Mosslmani leave to amend his claim to incorporate the new arguments, but ordered him to the pay the costs of the hearing.
She also foreshadowed "problems" with the new argument about the meaning of the word mullet and raised questions about whether it is defamatory to call someone "stupid".
The case was "by any measure a poorly-pleaded claim" and many, if not most, of the claims had already been struck out, Judge Gibson said.
The parties will fight about whether the new allegations can be pleaded at a later hearing on preliminary issues.
Replies
You wear a certain look, you live with the reaction you get.
The guys a dick and yes I know he'll probably sue me.
I'm more worried that he's allowed to be home schooled by inbred Neanderthals .
Case dismissed . Deport ...
Here's my short version take on this debate since you've posted it twice now . The short version ok ..
18C - if you offend someone you're virtually liable to be dragged through the courts over someone's feelings . Now how do you actually prove feelings ? You can't . = very dangerous as it doesn't need to be proven to stick
Defimation ='needs to be apparently proven that you suffered a loss . = not as dangerous for the accused whilst still very shady.
18C - very racially skewed - virtually a lottery for a white man that's for sure . Don't think you'll see to many Indigenous or Muslims on the wrong end of this law no matter what abuse they spew out .
He must be one cool dude hanging with Marilyn Manson.
However it does highlight how easy it is to get anything to court and even with stupid stuff like this Lawyers get paid. I bet they spent more time arguing costs in this case than the actual case itself.