Geoffrey Rush Libel case

Cafe Society
1

HERE

So Geoffrey Rush was in a production of King Lear in 2017. Ms Norvill, an actress in the play, says she was inappropriately grabbed by him and testified to such. Tabloids got a hold of this and published a hit piece on him called King Leer. Geoffrey sues for libel in Australia and wins a shit ton of money. On one hand, good for Geoffrey cause fuck the tabloids and fake new is general, on the other this might be a case of victim shaming and the courts got it wrong. So looks like the #metoo group is pissed also.

I wouldn’t normally trade a bucket of warm piss for any piece celebrity news, but I kinda want to know what’s going on here. So I thought I’d ask you guys.

2

Shitty defamation laws is what’s going on there, IMO.

ETA: And perhaps a different way of reading things. Since Ms. Norvill did say the things she said, it’s hard for to believe that reporting that she said those things somehow is improper. It’s hard to tell from the article, but it sure seems as if the court weighed whether or not there was sufficient evidence for a harassment conviction, rather than assessing whether or not the newspaper accurately reported events that did transpire.

EATA: Is there any appeals process for this judgement?

3

You know you can search for Australian newspaper articles on the internet, right?

4

Brief summary, from someone who did follow the case. Full disclosure - I have a pretty definite opinion on the case, and it ain’t much the same as the judge’s opinion

The timeline is:

*King Lear production completes

*Eryn Norville complains IN PRIVATE to trusted theatre HR person about Rush’s behaviour, with the aim of having people monitor him and stop future events

*Telegraph gets hold of story (somehow - I think through another friend of Norville’s. At this point the whole thing seems to have been a bit of an open secret) and splashes “Rush is a perve” headlines all over the place. Not mentioning Norville’s name, but saying “an actress involved in the production”

*Rush sues the Telegraph for squillions

*Norville agrees to testify for Telegraph from some combination of goodness of her heart/respect for actual truth of the situation. She doesn’t have to do this, and isn’t in any way an actual plaintiff in the case. Nevertheless the case inevitably degenerates into “Who’s more truthful, Rush or Norville?”

*Bunch of theatre old-timers lie their heads off for Rush. This group includes people who’s admittedly noticed Norville being upset at the time, and been giving her emotional support … as long as the hierarchy wasn’t threatened.

*Judge finds for Rush, and makes the Telegraph give him squillions.

FTR, I have no problem with the Telegraph having to pay money for bad behaviour, because they DID in fact behave badly, it’s just different bad behaviour from what they’ve been judged for. They threw a sexual harrassment target into the spotlight without her consent or knowledge, to make a buck. Unfortunately, that’s not illegal.

I have a pretty definite opinion on who’s the principle victim here.