The ACT Supreme Court has ruled that the word “”pornographer” is too imprecise to found a defamation action.
The Master, Alan Hogan, was ruling on a case over a Letter to the Editor of The Canberra Times brought by Robert Swan, who described himself in the statement of claim as parliamentary lobbyist and media consultant and an editorial and creative consultant on Ecstasy: The Australian Journal of Erotic Arts.
Mr Swan has represented the X-rated video industry against attempts to impose a special tax on it or to make it illegal.
Mr Swan is suing the writer of the letter and Federal Capital Press of Australian Pty Ltd, publisher of The Canberra Times.
Mr Swan asserted that the letter carried the imputation that he “”by his actions as a pornographer deliberately exploits for gain mentally insecure and unstable consumers of pornography”.
Mr Hogan struck out the imputation saying it was ambiguous: it did not state whether it was an imputation that he created pornography or that he purveyed it. The defendant could not identify the case to be met at trial.
He also struck out a claim for aggravated and exemplary damages because Mr Swan did not give particulars of facts he was relying upon to show the defendant acted with malice.
He has allowed Mr Swan to redraft his claims. He allowed two other imputations to stand: that Mr Swan had deliberately and falsely claimed to be committed to the ideals of social justice; and that Mr Swan has made a claim to be committed to ideals of social justice which is so wrong as to be ridiculous.
Mr Hogan ordered that Mr Swan pay the defendants’ costs.
Mr Swan was represented by Ric Lucas, instructed by Colquhoun Murphy. Federal Capital Press was represented by Bruce Connell, instructed by MacPhillamy, Cunmmins and Gibson.