Peter Dutton’s Tweet‑It‑Gone Victory
On a Monday that probably feels like an ordinary Monday (the one that happened on November 24, 2023), Aussie Defence Minister Peter Dutton bagged a $35,000 jury award in a defamation case that turned a social‑media bashing into a courtroom triumph. The case? A refugee activist who slammed him as a “rape apologist” in a midnight Twitter blast.
How a Tweet Turns Legal
Picture this: the defence minister’s team comes across a tweet from February 25 that’s no longer online but still rings in his ears. “I was hurt and distressed,” Dutton told the judge. Yet the judge noted that, as a public figure, most folks would see the tweet more as an opinion than a hard‑fact. That’s a key point the court made.
The Verdict and the Pay‑Per‑View
Judge Richard White handed down a $35,000 award—just a fraction of the maximum $130,000 the law allows. He found that Dutton was indeed defamed, but his daily life hadn’t been blown to bits because of the tweet. In other words, a fine feather‑in‑the-wing verdict that the court felt fairly balanced.
Why This Matters
- It’s another notch in the conservative government’s trophy shelf for tightening the noose on what it calls a “coward’s palace” of vindictive online chatter.
- Earlier this year, former attorney general Christian Porter settled a similar slate‑job with the Australian Broadcasting Corp over a tweet that claimed a historical rape allegation.
- Dutton had been slamming the protection—seeking refugees who would play “rape” to get into Australia—to a 2019 story the activist used to brand him a “rape apologist,” which got him visibly flustered.
What the Actors Said
Dutton, used to the hard‑ball politics, was “deeply offended” by the tweet. The judge pointed out that the activist’s account was verified—a little extra “red flag” looks. Meanwhile, the activist called the outcome “very disappointing” and mentioned he might take further steps.
Sign‑Off
No comment from Dutton’s camp yet, but the case is a stark reminder that a few words on Twitter can land big in court—especially when they touch on shameful or sensitive topics.
