A federal judge in Australia orders Google to pay an ex-politician $715K for doing “nothing to prevent” YouTuber Friendlyjordies' “abusive” videos about him
Tech giant and comedian Jordan Shanks may face contempt of court charges over videos published during trial
The GuardianMichael McGowan
Context & Ripple Effects
Australian courts had already tested intermediary responsibility through a ruling holding Google responsible for links to defamatory sites, while media companies faced liability for comments on their Facebook pages. This case applies that accountability pressure to Google’s handling of videos on YouTube.
The legal boundary was subsequently narrowed when Australia’s high court held Google was not the publisher of a defamatory search result. That distinction makes the present finding significant as a platform-hosting and prevention case rather than a broad rule for all Google search links.
First-order effects
Google must pay the former politician $715,000 under the federal judge’s order, while Jordan Shanks and Google face possible contempt charges over videos published during the trial.
YouTube’s handling of the Friendlyjordies videos is placed at the center of the dispute: the finding turns on Google allegedly failing to prevent the abusive material.
Second-order effects
Google has a stronger incentive to treat defamation complaints and court-related publishing restrictions on YouTube as operational moderation issues, rather than solely as disputes between a creator and a claimant.
Australian publishers and platforms confronting user-posted material gain another liability reference point alongside the earlier Facebook-page comments ruling, even as the high court’s search decision limits direct comparison.
Third-order effects
Australian intermediary law is developing by function—linking, search results, hosted video and publisher-controlled comment spaces—rather than through a single blanket publisher standard.
If courts continue to focus on a platform’s ability to prevent specific harmful content, moderation procedures and compliance records may become as consequential in liability disputes as the initial act of publication.
The trend: Australia’s platform-liability disputes are moving toward fact-specific tests of control and prevention across different distribution systems.
Wait a second .., am I reading this right? So the person who actually committed the offense, the one creating and uploading the videos, is not charged with anything? ... But Google is? That's nuts. https://twitter.com/...
Taxpayers have just funded a rich man getting richer, John Barilaro. Cash from Google in @friendlyjordies matter, despite not one bit of evidence being tested in court. Then there's the terror police ignored. Not good for social media. https://michaelwest.com.au/...
The federal court has ordered Google pay Barilaro $715,000 because he was “traumatised” by YouTube videos by @friendlyjordies & Google didn't remove them when he asked. This is the man that allegedly had the the fixated persons unit *actually* traumatise & arrest Kristo Langker.
It is possible to agree that our defamation laws are deeply broken, to be worried about the trend of politicians suing for defamation, and to agree that Friendlyjordies' videos and views more broadly are awful and extremely problematic
One push (eg law proposed in Brazil to exempt them from content moderation) is to create special protections for politicians' speech online, another is to make it easier for those with money and/or power to disincentivize criticism online. Neither is great for individual citizens…
Without a Sectino 230, this is what will happen and hosts will kill speech. Friendlyjordies: John Barilaro to be paid $715,000 by Google over YouTube videos https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
Australian media law continues to be a nightmare. A comedian posts YouTube vids making fun of a major elected official. The videos make the politician sad. So he sues...Google? For not taking down the videos that made him sad? And he wins $715,000? https://www.theguardian.com/ ..…
“Barilaro made no secret of his anger at the tech company for refusing to apologise for the videos, despite having dropped the majority of its defences days before the trial was due to begin. “I hate Google,” he told the court.” https://twitter.com/...
Federal court judge Stephen Rares says Barilaro was traumatised by the friendly jordies video, not even the threat of ICAC traumatises Barilaro, Rares. https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
Why free speech absolutism is a pathway to hell. Interesting how offline laws and community standards are *finally* being applied to big tech. Google ordered to pay John Barilaro $715,000 over Friendlyjordies YouTube videos https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
“Monday's ruling is one of the first where the firm was deemed an active publisher - via YouTube - of content that defamed an elected official” https://www.reuters.com/...
“Google was part and parcel of this disgusting behaviour because it facilitated, published and kept up on YouTube this and similar videos,” the judge said. https://www.theguardian.com/ ...