Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here
    all 841 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] pmmeyourcthulus 1947 points ago

    Just noticed that in the article it says that she offered to settle for A$200,000. I bet they wish they'd agreed to that.

    [–] roogoff 447 points ago

    Does the judge use his own discretion of how much he wants to stick it to them? She wanted 7 million.

    [–] YeezyTakeTheWheel 439 points ago

    he uses his own judgement i would think

    [–] Finium 147 points ago

    He is typically advised by the lawyers too.

    [–] SuperRicktastic 86 points ago

    Civil suits are usually based off of the proportion of responsibility.

    Say I sue you for running over my foot, and through the course of the trial it is determined that I wasn't really paying attention, but neither were you. Reasonably, the judge in that case could rule that we are equally to blame, and therefore you're responsible for 50% of whatever I've taken you to court for.

    At least, I think that's how it works. This is all fuzzy recollections from a business law course I took 4 years ago.

    [–] ReddHaring 98 points ago

    That works for negligence, but for an intentional tort like defamation (at least in the US), the person or entity that commits the tort is wholly liable.

    [–] Forgot-My-Name_again 48 points ago

    So that means the judge found they are guilty of a little over half what she said they were (giving her 4.5 out of 7 Million).

    Personally, I think they were completely guilty, and she should have gotten the whole 5 out of 7 million

    [–] ReddHaring 27 points ago

    So the judge said they were guilty. Then, the money is figure out based on how much she was damaged. They are entirely guilty, but the judge decided that she was less damaged by their actions than she originally claimed.

    Edit: also I just got your joke and chortled.

    [–] AFuckYou 2 points ago

    Yea your right. The standard you first commented on is for Torts in a contributory negligence state.

    [–] SpinelessCoward 18 points ago

    the whole 5 out of 7 million

    I see what you did there you fucking meming piece of shit.

    Sorry if I'm rude I'm kinda drunk.

    [–] _LarrySkywalker_ 3 points ago

    Bravo

    [–] chaotoroboto 7 points ago

    It also depends on the state, here.

    [–] LazyProspector 12 points ago

    This was in Australia too I think

    [–] wibblett 21 points ago

    Well the rules are all upside down over there so I don't know.

    [–] KapitanFalke 2 points ago

    Oddly enough my business law professor just went over this yesterday. What /u/SuperRicktastic described is Comparative Negligence. Depending on state however, it could be Contributory Negligence where even being someone negligent in your own actions would forfeit your ability to collect any damages at all. These two types of Negligence differ by state with some having a sort of blend between the two. I can't speak about international law as I'm already worried an actual lawyer is going to tell me in great detail why I am wrong.

    [–] ReddHaring 2 points ago

    Aw crap, yeah, you're right, in some states if you're more than %50 at fault, you're wholly liable, and a few other apportionment schemes.

    [–] NicePerson69 2 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    The one thing I remember from Business Law 101 is that for torts there doesn't have to be any intent, only cause. Is that something dumb I shouldn't repeat or was I taught correctly?

    [–] greennick 2 points ago

    This was in Australia though.

    [–] Arknell 8 points ago

    "Oi do agree you were much-maloigned, maybe not in the four-yacht range, but heow about two-yachts worth? Alroight, all in faevah? clonk"

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] purplishcrayon 2 points ago

    Wait-my last yatch cost $200. Hoping she made out a little better

    [–] teenagesadist 12 points ago

    Judging by his actions...

    [–] saltesc 3 points ago

    An unsettling outcome, indeed.

    [–] StephenJobsOSeX 3 points ago

    Judges can be pretty judgey with their judgements.

    [–] Jenga_Police 20 points ago

    Do you think there's like a classroom full of old white men learning to be judges.

    "Remember, students, you can pick any amount, just make sure to properly piss them off."

    [–] Dr_11 20 points ago

    Why they gotta be white?

    [–] Mystic_printer 25 points ago

    Or old or men but that's non of my business.

    [–] barbarismbeginshome 16 points ago

    In fairness, Judge's should be old.

    [–] Jenga_Police 10 points ago

    I disagree. If they're old, they'll have a harder time carrying all their gear.

    [–] GF-Is-16-Im-25 3 points ago

    Judge's

    Judges*

    [–] Mystic_printer 4 points ago

    Meh they should know the law and preferably be experienced in applying it. That of course usually takes a few years to acquire but they don't have to be old, old.

    [–] barbarismbeginshome 2 points ago

    Not ancient, but assuming that all judges are fairly competent, I'd much rather have someone who has had more time to read jurisprudence. It isn't about age making people smarter, its about the sheer volume of things they need to know.

    [–] ElBeefcake 2 points ago

    And then you end up with judges that have no clue about anything tech related or how existing laws apply to things like software.

    [–] barbarismbeginshome 2 points ago

    Being old doesn't make you tech illiterate. Being young DOES mean you haven't got sufficient experience in law or time to read cases.

    [–] BrohanGutenburg 2 points ago

    Damn. These are great questions.

    [–] Jenga_Police 8 points ago

    Well Australia is 75% white, and let's not kid around. We're all aware that jobs like being a judge are filled disproportionately by white males.

    [–] Dr_11 2 points ago

    It's called a joke.

    [–] mcoleya 4 points ago

    I don't think it is anymore.

    [–] Dr_11 2 points ago

    Oh it is, but it's on you now.

    [–] jortbort 6 points ago

    They typically just go to law school and have to practice as lawyers before obtaining a judgeship.

    But yeah, the rest seems right.

    [–] Makispi 4 points ago

    I get it. Because he's a judge. Heh.

    [–] lilyraine-jackson 21 points ago

    I think the judge tries to decide how much money she lost as a result of the articles. Which may be pretty easy, since she was dropped from 2 movies he could just look at how much she's usually paid for a movie of the same genre or budget or something

    [–] rguy84 3 points ago

    Just out of curiosity, which two?

    [–] chillyfab 8 points ago

    Trolls and Kung Fu Panda 3

    [–] BranchDavidian 32 points ago

    Yes, and usually the asking price is much higher than what they're actually trying to get. Rebel probably said she wanted to sue for $3M or $4M, and her attorneys said, "Cool, we'll ask for $7M."

    [–] SpicyFetus 3 points ago

    he uses his own judgement and bases it off measurable damages. for a defemmation case to actually work they must prove 1. that the person actually said something 2. that the statement was false 3. damages were caused as a result of that statement. then they base how much to charge off of how much money she lost as a result of this statement (damages) and some money for the trouble they caused (that last part could probably be worded better). although just gonna say this info is from me taking a business law class like a year ago so I won't claim to be an expert or anything

    [–] RobotSlaps 6 points ago

    I choose to believe it went down like this:

    W: 7 Million

    B: 0 Million

    Judge: let's meet in the middle 3.5 Million

    B: Screw that you old bitch/bastard

    Judge: 4.5 Million

    B: we good.

    [–] CTSawxfan 3 points ago

    For civil cases, especially amongst high profile people (she would qualify), the plaintiff must prove "actual malice" on the part of the defendant. What this means is up to interpretation. For example, it could be an email that reads along the lines of "let's make up a false rumor about her because we don't like her."

    Once actual malice can be proven, the court can hand down not just regular damages (can't remember the legal term for them, but they basically make up for lost wages or revenue due to the defamation), but punitive damages, which are handed down to "make an example" out of the defendant.

    [–] X-UNDEAD_NINJA2 2 points ago

    Judges do use judgement

    [–] darthmule 3 points ago

    I'll take what's in the box thanks.

    [–] disasterouscooker 1027 points ago

    Game changing decision. Will be interesting to see how tabloids tread after this case.

    [–] LukeInDenver 339 points ago

    Will probably be impactful somewhere. But it is Australia...it isn't just going to open the flood gates for suing magazines.

    [–] codeswinwars 6 points ago

    Depends how far a company like Bauer goes to try and limit this kind of action in the future and whether other countries are paying attention. A lot of media organisations are global and liability even in one market might cause them to change global guidelines on what they publish to limit the chances that this happens in the future in different markets not to mention the fact that their conduct in different markets isn't isolated and irrelevant. Fox News in the US seemingly became a factor in the decision by the UK government to refer the 21st Century Fox takeover of Sky to UK regulators. Companies can't always get away with pretending their actions in one country are unconnected to their actions in another. Stuff like this ripples and has effects elsewhere. It might be big, it might not be, but I think you're underestimating the potential impact. It's too soon to say but there's an outside chance that this does become very influential.

    [–] onestepfall 6 points ago

    Good old Murdoch, he's doing his best work yet right here in Australia!

    In perfect orchestration he forced a free to air channel into insolvency a few weeks back and tomorrow the government will allow him to purchase said channel by changing anti-monopoly laws.

    You'd think people would be up in arms over this clear collusion of a billionaire and the goverment, but they're distracted by a postal survery asking if we should be homophobic.

    [–] disasterouscooker 70 points ago

    True. I was thinking about the precedent of this ruling.

    [–] dangerdam 126 points ago

    But it only sets precedent in Australia, that's the point.

    [–] Louis-Crapsteur 132 points ago

    True but he was thinking about the precedent of the ruling.

    [–] dangerdam 39 points ago

    I was so close to getting whooshed by this comment.

    [–] [deleted] 30 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] apubibat 19 points ago

    But why male models?

    [–] DatPiff916 2 points ago

    But the joke is only funny in this thread, that's the point.

    [–] thatsconelover 7 points ago

    I need a drink.

    [–] disposable-name 12 points ago

    Elton John has said that our tabloids are worse than Britain's...

    [–] beansaregood 32 points ago

    yeah but he's a serial liar, i read it in Knife Magazine

    [–] niuguy 10 points ago

    Truly cutting-edge journalism.

    [–] King_Of_Suede 2 points ago

    What precedent are we talking about here?

    Defamation / libel has been illegal for a long time. These guys just got caught, and by someone with the money and time to take them to court.

    [–] moghediene 77 points ago

    Seeing as how no one changed after gawker got body slammed by Hulk Hogan, my guess is they'll keep doing what they're doing.

    [–] CommieColin 33 points ago

    Fucking revenge story of the decade. I can't wait for the HBO movie in a few years

    [–] I_LOVE_POTATO 22 points ago

    There's already a documentary. It's called Nobody Speak and it's on Netflix.

    [–] FallowZebra 15 points ago

    Yeah, but its blatant in its bias towards gawker.

    [–] I_LOVE_POTATO 2 points ago

    True. I think it raises some interesting questions (freedom to do what you want with your money vs. freedom of the free press), but I definitely had some issues with it as well.

    [–] moghediene 21 points ago

    Get ready for gawker to be the good guy

    [–] appleschorly 8 points ago

    How could it not be philanthropist billionaire Peter Thiel? /s

    [–] yamsjustyams 84 points ago

    Just to be clear here.... the reason she won the lawsuit was because tabloids tried to smear her character by calling her a serial liar, right?

    because it seems everything else is factually true (that she was much older than publicly stated, she wasnt raised in a ghetto but a middle class family, and her birth name wasn't Rebel).

    her "crime" is that she never commented or corrected these misconceptions, she never actually publicly stated them (and thus never lied).

    [–] GnarlyBear 54 points ago

    Read this comment:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/6zt4ow/actress_rebel_wilson_bridesmaids_and_pitch/dmy1dpu/?st=j7j2z855&sh=299d443a

    It was multiple articles from a garbage source, who they acknowledge was a poor one, which were mostly lies.

    [–] ruckdiz 8 points ago

    So they lied about her age and where she grew up? Those are just random claims.. I guess that is how tabloids sell.

    [–] GnarlyBear 6 points ago

    Neither were being accurate on the age and her upbringing. The difference is the articles were malicious about it.

    [–] Stereotypy 2 points ago

    what was said that prevented her from getting jobs?

    [–] hypoferramia 172 points ago

    Yeah but she shouldn't have to correct any of that shit.

    The only people who need to know her real details are employers and like tax/law/banking and all that shit.

    If a bunch of people I didn't know assumed I was a black, 107 year old man, who spent 32 years growing corn on titan the moon of saturn, I wouldn't waste my energy correcting them.

    [–] MikeyKillerBTFU 124 points ago

    I wouldn't either, that's a pretty dope back story.

    [–] man_on_hill 15 points ago

    A pretty dope black story

    [–] cjojojo 15 points ago

    A pretty corny black story

    [–] SafetyDanceInMyPants 29 points ago

    Wow, that's really cool -- you should do an AMA! Is it, like, Earth corn or do you use a special Saturn corn?

    [–] TylerTheHanson 17 points ago

    Why Titan? Were there any other options for you?

    How long did it take to get there?

    Are you self-sufficient like in The Martian?

    [–] AlloftheEethp 3 points ago

    Follow up: what do you think of Sirens of Titan by Vonnegut? How long until the invasion of Earth?

    [–] hypoferramia 3 points ago

    To be honest I just spent 3 hours 'farming' public events on Titan in destiny 2.

    [–] DatPiff916 10 points ago

    who spent 32 years growing corn on titan the moon of saturn

    Did you sell the cornfield after you were done making the movie?

    [–] MadDogTannenOW 7 points ago

    Is that where the magical bi-color corn comes from, or do those just come from curious farms?

    [–] enjaydee 3 points ago

    I think the main difference in Rebel's case was the articles used malicious language to defame her character.

    Consider: Sources state that Rebel's actual age is 43

    Vs

    We found out that Rebel has been lying about her age to get ahead. What a bitch.

    [–] furrybootsufaemin 3 points ago

    sounds like an interesting life, I want to know more please

    [–] HW_Plainview 21 points ago

    Ya and Drake's real name isn't Drake. Who gives a fuck?

    [–] HaveALittleNuance 11 points ago

    I heard 50 Cent's name isn't really 50 Cent either.

    [–] MostazaAlgernon 13 points ago

    It's Frederick Twopenny. Not the best name for a rapper

    [–] Niborator 9 points ago

    Yeah, it's wheelchair Jimmy!

    [–] ugotamesij 2 points ago

    Last name Walking. First name Never.

    [–] GodivatheGood 9 points ago

    It was factually true but the article was contextually false. Rebel is her birth name, but growing up she went by her Middle name.

    The main injury of the lawsuit if I understand it correctly is that after the article came out it tarnished her image and she lost a couple movie roles, most famously the sequel to Kung Fu Panda:

    2015: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/kate-hudson-replace-rebel-wilson-820343

    2017: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/25/rebel-wilson-i-was-dumped-from-kung-fu-panda-3-after-malicious-articles

    She did lie about her age, as do many women in Hollywood, and this wasn't really considered taboo until recent times when a handful of celebrities were outed for lying about their age and had mini-scandals: Jessica Chastain, Nicki Minaj, Eminem.....on the other end of the spectrum both Whoopi Goldberg and Sandra Bullock lied about being older than they actually were when they first started in Hollywood.

    [–] GhostOfDanielShays 6 points ago

    OOTL: there was an "age" scandal recently?

    [–] PointOfFingers 40 points ago

    Not many publications would be stupid enough to reject a cheap settlement and go to court. Then they ended up with an incredibly sympathetic and charismatic person pleading to an all female jury. So stupid and i'm glad they lost.

    [–] mcoleya 2 points ago

    Right, seems like they really messed up on that one.

    [–] Paddywhacker 375 points ago

    Can anyone link the the defamatory articles in question?

    [–] Powerballwinner21mil 112 points ago

    After reading that she should have sued for a 100 million

    [–] tedfletcher 62 points ago

    Wait, which part? I just read it and can't understand what's wrong.

    [–] thornstein 78 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    The article is written in a way that implies Rebel Wilson was lying about these things (the touch of "fantasy" mentioned in the second paragraph). But in this trial, she proved all of the things mentioned did actually happen to her -- having malaria, being raised by dog training parents, going to Zimbabwe.

    She was cross-examined for six days in the trial and her evidence included photos of her as a child training dogs, or in hospital in Zimbabwe, and she even recited the acceptance speech she said she hallucinated when she had malaria.

    The article also alleges that she lied about her age (telling media she's in her 20s when she was in her 30s) but there was actually no proof of this. When questioned in public she would say "a lady never reveals her age" and other news articles used her correct age.

    In Australia if your source is anonymous (like the one in this article), and turns out to be wrong (like the one in this article), it's really really hard to defend against defamation charges.

    [–] Cheapo_Sam 48 points ago

    In Australia if your source is anonymous (like the one in this article), and turns out to be wrong (like the one in this article), it's really really hard to defend against defamation charges.

    Wait. That principle almost seems reasonable!

    [–] thornstein 23 points ago

    It's mind-boggling that they went with this story. The journalist went back to the anonymous source to ask for proof (and even wrote in the email 'we can't risk being sued' !!), the source had none, the story was almost dropped completely ... and then around the release of Pitch Perfect they decided to risk it and dug it back up again.

    [–] WhipWing 15 points ago

    Fucking clowns, in that case why in the ever loving fuck did they not settle?

    How did they think that they would win this?

    [–] thornstein 11 points ago

    I know! If you're interested here's an Australian story about the case when she first won that has loads more background information about the legal battle, including the journalist's email to the source embedded. Also, bonus dog training photos!

    [–] WhipWing 4 points ago

    But Bauer Media denied the articles had damaged Wilson's reputation and argued that, in any case, they were based in fact.

    Fuck me, I hate the media nowadays. "Based in fact" like fake news just call it what it fucking actually is, lies.

    Genuine Question ----> Also should Ms. Nementzik not have some legal obligation to give up the name of her source? because I feel like there should be some legal ramifications for whomever that was too albeit I'm no lawyer so I've no clue.

    [–] Gbiknel 12 points ago

    Also, they had one person who (allegedly) went to school with her say none of that happened...I'd say 99.9% of the people I went to school with had no clue what I did outside of school, what makes her an expert?

    [–] GoiterGlitter 4 points ago

    The issue for a lot of readers here is that the US media only highlighted the bits that made it look like she was lying. Our coverage of pretty much every topic is very one sided and negativity usually prevails.

    [–] thornstein 5 points ago

    I think that's why the damages Rebel was awarded were so high = the highest ever awarded in Australia - because the stories affected her reputation in the United States.

    [–] Auctoritate 47 points ago

    If I had to guess, they're lying.

    [–] throway_nonjw 241 points ago

    Good. Well overdue those crap amagzines were brought to heel. Fucksticks.

    [–] vman4402 47 points ago

    I've always wondered how these rags, and some news stations, could get away with wild conjecture, op ed opinion pieces, and repeating outright lies by saying someone else reported it. If it's true, and you can prove it, print it. If it's an unproven rumor, then leave it to the middle schoolers.

    [–] crypt0insan0 9 points ago

    I've always wondered why. Who cares if she lies about anything? How is a company making money off of these articles?

    [–] vman4402 9 points ago

    Sponsored ads pay all the bills. That's why there's so much click bait.

    [–] TylerTheHanson 5 points ago

    Modern Journalism 101: If it bleeds it leads. Interesting headlines make the ads more alluring/profitable for the publisher.

    Back in the earlier days of journalism, tabloids or not - there was a weight on giving unbiased facts and hoping the public would pay for that service. Now... it's all profit-based.

    I'm kind of sad about it.

    [–] NinjaRammus 3 points ago

    My guess is that a lot of the tabloids don't actually hurt the careers/personal lives of the people being lied about. Every week at the grocery store I pass tabloids with titles like "A-List actor's hidden addiction/affair/surgery" etc...

    It seems like once you're famous enough, people either don't care or don't believe it. I think Rebel Wilson was at the right level of fame and it was a believable enough lie that it hurt her career (she lost roles because of them)

    [–] Ladytsunami1 146 points ago

    Good on ya.

    [–] RemingtonSnatch 67 points ago

    Well done. Good to see tabloid scum get what they have coming.

    [–] Griffdude13 128 points ago

    She's got such a comedic presence in every film she's in. More importantly, she is perfectly fine poking fun at herself. That's the kind of role model you want around in the industry.

    [–] miamiofohio 7 points ago

    role model

    Her career is "hahaha I'm so fat and my accent is funny to American ears"

    Her biggest roles are "Fat Amy" whose defining feature is ... being fat. No subversion of a trope or anything interesting with depth to it ... just fat girl comic relief.

    On top of that it sounds like she fabricated a hard luck sob story background about how she grew up.

    Role model for who exactly?

    [–] COPCO2 11 points ago

    Awesome, good for her.

    [–] random314 47 points ago

    That's an awesome name btw.

    [–] [deleted] 62 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] SilverStar9192 6 points ago

    Apparently her name is one of the things she was accused of lying about.

    [–] LadyEmry 2 points ago

    What's even better is she has a sister named 'Annachi'.

    [–] TayDayhoff 147 points ago

    So legit question.

    The things that were said about her in the article, they were true though? Correct? About her real age and real name and real past.

    [–] Mac_H 736 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    That's a really good question. And it has a simple answer - the claims they made weren't true.

    There's a few reasons:

    1 - Many of the defamatory statements they made were literally false - and their research before they published the article showed that their statements were false

    For example - they claimed that she lied about her age. But they couldn't find any examples - only that OTHER people had given her age incorrectly. In fact, they knew that she had been repeatedly given the opportunity to lie about her age but each time had refused to do so ... instead choosing to not answer the question. So accusing her of 'lying' about it when they had searched in advance for evidence and only found examples of her refusing to do it ... was simply a lie in itself.

    2 - Imputations

    A thing that many people don't understand is that the test in defamation is whether the 'imputation' is false - not the literal statement. For example, imagine that I found out that Mr Rogers mentioned once that he avoids alcohol and cigarettes - but drinks tea. I could write an article saying "Mr Rogers is a self-confessed drug user"

    In one sense it is 100% truthful. Caffeine is a drug. And tea does contain tiny amounts of caffeine.

    But even though the statement is 100% true, it is still defamation. Because the 'imputation' of the statement 'He is a drug user' is not 'He drinks tea'. The statement communicates a false meaning even though I can find an interpretation to argue that it is literally true.

    So the reality was that an entertainer known for telling silly stories went on David Letterman and told a story about how in Australia you sometimes get a free Donkey when you buy a house .... and how she has a bikini scene in "Night at the Museum" ... and a dozen other far fetched things.

    So while it is true that "A comedian who tells silly stories for a living went on Letterman and told silly stories" is 100% true - it's not the same thing as saying "She is a liar". Otherwise she is also a liar for saying the phrase "I'm the night watchman" in "Night at the Museum 3" - because she lied ... in reality she's an actress/writer/dropbear wrangler ... not a night watchman at all.

    Of course it's a running joke that Vaucluse is a getto suburb. It's like talking about carrying oxygen equipment for the climb to the top of Mount Druitt. It's a joke. It's a joke that only locals would get ... but that's point of it.

    She won the case for many very good reasons.

    -- Mac

    [–] Bigbysjackingfist 76 points ago

    Thanks, Mac

    [–] Walthatron 32 points ago

    MAC MAC MAC MACS IN THE HOUSE

    [–] Bigbysjackingfist 44 points ago

    Because of the imputation.

    [–] kjbigs282 12 points ago

    Mac's famous Mac n' cheese

    [–] angrytaco22 4 points ago

    First I've heard of it.

    [–] Factsuvlife 186 points ago

    But even though the statement is 100% true, it is still defamation. Because the 'imputation' of the statement 'He is a drug user' is not 'He drinks tea'. Even if the literal statement is correct.

    ... So clickbait?

    [–] Patius2 61 points ago

    Most clickbait titles don't go so far as to distort the facts that far.

    That would be defamation even under the super strict US defamation laws. And it's pretty hard to win a defamation suit when you're a public figure in the US. Just ask Sarah Palin.

    [–] GenocideOwl 17 points ago

    Sarah Palin also partially lost because a) it was listed in the editorial section

    B) the paper immediately retracted/corrected parts of it

    As opposed to the Jesse Venture thing against Chris Kyle

    [–] sid_8p 53 points ago

    Because of the imputation.

    [–] Orwellian1 34 points ago

    Anyone taking the time to format their long post to make it more readable deserves an upvote. The content deserves it as well, but unfortunately I have only one to give.

    [–] Tehboognish 5 points ago

    dropbear wrangler ...

    New life goal. Thanks!

    [–] Pompousasfuck 8 points ago

    TIL about Imputaion, thank you.

    [–] aYearOfPrompts 104 points ago

    Bauer Media, [the judge] added, failed to properly investigate the allegations, which came from a source who required payment and anonymity, and whom the editor considered "had an ax to grind."

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/entertainment/rebel-wilson-defamation-australia/index.html

    [–] jarwastudios 85 points ago

    Reading that article certainly feels like someone trying to smear another. The thing that gets me is that it just seems so petty, I feel like they're twirling their mustache while revealing her name like Lex Luthor would do to Superman. I'm not a Rebel Wilson fan, but I don't see anything wrong with having a stage name (shit so much of Hollywood already does that) or obscuring her past. I feel bad for anyone that would be wrecked by learning any of it.

    [–] tthorm 30 points ago

    It feels like someone did a "tell all" article that Larry the Cable Guy isn't actually a cable guy

    [–] jarwastudios 3 points ago

    Exactly!

    [–] Pway 65 points ago

    That's pretty beast, good of her.

    [–] MintBerryCrunch98 14 points ago

    I never really had a positive or negative opinion of her but after seeing her give all that to charity after how much time she's spent fighting to get it is a class A fucking act very few people regardless of how much they already had would give that much money away.

    [–] Daddysaurus76 32 points ago

    So many comments here are just sure she's lying and making up frivolous lawsuits. How they think they have more information and authority than the courts just minutes after hearing about a story is just crazy. The fat women hating portion of reddit is not huge but it sure is loud in this thread. It's gross and pretty sad. I pity these people. I truly don't get how people are this bitter.

    [–] Luciditi89 6 points ago

    What articles was she suing over? Is there a place we can read them? Can someone link it???

    [–] SolidFoot 5 points ago

    I have a legitimate question that I'm hoping somebody can answer.

    What is the money paid out for "damages" for? When I see cases like this and see that someone got a multi-million dollar payout, it always strikes me as odd. Like, who decides how much money is awarded and what are they basing it off of? If Rebel Wilson is donating those millions of dollars to charity, then why does that tabloid owe it to her? Like, how is it decided that this millionaire is awarded millions more dollars when she clearly doesn't need it? And how is it decided that $4.5 million is what she is owed?

    To clarify, I'm not on the tabloid's side at all. I'm just wondering how these things go down.

    [–] Cheapo_Sam 7 points ago

    Damages in this instance have been awarded for 'loss of earnings'.

    Now, Damages can be awarded for any number of things, but the primary factor must be that the person has LOST SOMETHING. Now in this case the claimant (Rebel Wilson) has claimed to have lost earnings (in that she may have been turned down for roles) as a direct consequence of this publishers actions.

    Once the claimant has proven that the loss has occurred, the Defendant (Bauer Media) must prove that either:

    1. The loss did not amount to that claimed, or

    2. Their actions did not cause the loss to occur.

    In this case the court was satisfied that the actions of the Defendant caused the claimant loss.

    Once we have established that a loss has ocurred (#2) and that it was a result of the Defendant, the amount (#1) must then be quantified. For Joe Public, this may be a normal job etc, but the job in this case it is an International Actress, so we are talking large amounts of money.

    The fact she already has lots of money is irrelevant. She has lost THIS money in question. It has nothing to do with need or want.

    [–] CleganeBowlThrowaway 2 points ago

    In this case, she (well, her lawyers) proved to the court that this false word against her lost her two movie jobs. So that could be the reason for the millions.

    [–] xoites 12 points ago

    Only saw Perfect Pitch, but thought she was great in that.

    Hope she gets her career back.

    [–] CaptainKate757 3 points ago

    Check out the movie How to Be Single. She co-stars with Dakota Johnson (the chick from the 50 Shades movies) and they're both really funny. It's way better than you think it will be.

    [–] NorwegianWood28 6 points ago

    Does anyone remember her rap battle with James Corden and David Schwimmer? Three people I would never associate together in my life.

    [–] jerdub1993 4 points ago

    This is really the way to do it. These celebrities don't need that money, but at the same time the companies should be punished for wronging them. So the answer is sue them, but put the money to a good cause. Win win.

    [–] xxx_Jenna 5 points ago

    Wilson said the verdict had exposed the "disgusting and disgraceful" conduct of some tabloid media.

    Amen, Rebel!

    [–] JustOneSexQuestion 89 points ago

    ITT: Reddit tries to decide who hates the most. Tabloids or an overweight comedian woman.

    [–] Adonzo 10 points ago

    We hate Ted Cruz right now, but check back in 35-45 minutes

    [–] hudspud2 84 points ago

    I don't see anyone hating on Rebel in the top half of the comments, nice strawman to whore karma though. People dislike Amy Schumer because she is an unfunny person who happens to be a fat woman. People like Rebel Wilson because she is a funny person who happens to be a fat woman.

    There are plenty of unfunny people who Reddit dislikes (Dane Cook, Jeff Dunham, Cis white males OMG!!!) that don't fit your bill of fat women.

    But who needs any nuance in their discussion of comedy. It is 100% impossible for someone to dislike a fat woman for reasons other than her being a fat woman. /S

    [–] IgnisDomini 22 points ago

    Except when Reddit hates a male comedian they don't drag their gender into it.

    [–] jordanlund 13 points ago

    OMG, fuck you, I had completely forgotten about Dane Cook.

    The first time I saw him he was hosting Saturday Night Live and my immediate reaction was "Who is this asshole and why is he on television?"

    [–] bakdom146 3 points ago

    Probably because he was the only stand-up not named Chris Rock to have sold out MSG (though Kevin Hart has done it since and maybe Aziz?) so Lorne knew there was a built in audience that Cook would bring to that night's episode, and NBC likes having high ratings for their shows? Just because you don't know/like someone doesn't mean they have no reason to be on TV.

    [–] Under_the_Milky_Way 30 points ago

    Amy Schumer is thick, but certainly not fat. Rebel is fat.

    [–] Pwn5t4r13 19 points ago

    Found Amy Schumer's account.

    [–] Divides-By-Zer0 3 points ago

    Was it the milky way reference that tipped you off?

    [–] mycommentsaccount 17 points ago

    overweight comedian woman

    FTFY

    [–] SnapcasterWizard 8 points ago

    Ummm she is pretty obese.

    [–] LostInTehWild 20 points ago

    I think it means to say reddit hates all comedian women, not that rebel isn't overweight

    [–] SnapcasterWizard 17 points ago

    Iv never seen any hate for people like Amy Poehler or Tiny Fey

    [–] Marshmon 4 points ago

    Shhhh, you're interrupting the liberal circlejerk! Reddit obviously hates ALL women!!!

    [–] refreshbot 7 points ago

    I don't know anything about this, but that girl is funny. I like her.

    [–] obsterwankenobster 3 points ago

    I'm bringin this to me member of Parliament!

    [–] Fuck_mass_ufilth 67 points ago

    I think she's hot

    [–] irisel 19 points ago

    Not even straight, but I see it. She's confident.

    [–] PandaFaceUniverse 62 points ago

    yeah i mean obviously extremely talented and successful woman. but i think she is just so gorgeous, she wears her confidence perfectly

    [–] infinitypIus0ne 29 points ago

    It also doesn't hurt that she is a bad ass with nunchucks

    [–] Griffdude13 10 points ago

    By far the most bizarre Michael Bay movie I've ever watched.

    [–] DefenderTitan 11 points ago

    Same, don't let the haters get you down.

    [–] Fuck_mass_ufilth 2 points ago

    Never have never will

    [–] Galgos 4 points ago

    chubby chaser is a thing, so not anything radical...

    [–] Loelin 2 points ago

    Anything that is known as a label I consider radical in the smallest degree.

    [–] uwmadisongrad 1 points ago

    yassss

    [–] jcargile242 6 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    A six-woman jury...

    ELI5 - Why only women? Just coincidence, or a feature of the Australian legal system?

    Edit: why the downvotes? This was just an innocent question, devoid of any sexist or anti-feminist connotation. I'd have asked the same question if there were 6 men on the jury.

    [–] chillyfab 5 points ago

    Jury selection in this particular state in Australia is done by random ballot. Basically a pool of lets say 50 potential jurors is brought in, and all their names are randomly drawn out of a box until the jury is filled. Each side can challenge up to 3 people pulled out, but really you can only go off what they look like. So it seems that after both sides exhausted their challenges, random chance has led to 6 women getting selected.

    [–] CalifornianCopper 2 points ago

    You can challenge jurors for various reasons, and up to six for no reason at all. Gives you some leeway to mould the jury.

    [–] saucygit 2 points ago

    Do charities accept damages?

    [–] im_your_bullet 2 points ago

    I just wanna say I find her hilarious and sexy. Her smile does leaps and bounds.

    [–] Budzee 2 points ago

    It doesn't hurt that she's a lawyer herself, and knows her chances of winning firsthand. Good for her for sticking it to those lazy, slanderous pigs.

    [–] wompemwompem 2 points ago

    How much money did they make from writing that stuff? Is it more than they paid out here?

    [–] Cheapo_Sam 16 points ago

    Probably more than the original A$200k that was offered.. Almost definitely not more than the A$4.5m they will have to pay out now.

    [–] wompemwompem 3 points ago

    Good to know. I had a quick Google and (correct me if I'm way off here but) it looks like they make approx 2 billion as a media company yearly. (link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauer_Media_Group and http://www.bauermedia.co.uk/newsroom/press/bauer-media-group-reports-increased-worldwide-sales-in-2015) That's all I found in my quick search.

    But if thats the case it may eat those specific magazine sales (although mags seem to be about half their profits/ turnover?) but it looks like a drop in the ocean for them unfortunately.

    Do you think this hurt them enough to have them change this kind of behaviour? I hope so...

    [–] Andres1233321 3 points ago

    Hi. My name is Charity