Spurr vs New Matilda case pits privacy against public interest
In this cross-posting fromThe Conversation University of Canberra’s Bruce Baer Arnold examines the issues at stake as Barry Spurr takes on New Matilda over the publication of emails.
Don’t be distracted by theatrics about political correctness, the boundaries of bad humour and professorial impropriety. The real excitement in the “Spurr Affair” has been occurring in the Federal Court. It is excitement about the shape of privacy in Australian law and about legal recognition of “public interest”. That interest is a compelling “right to know” as a basis of the liberal democratic state, rather than just public curiosity.
Prior to the release of emails from Spurr to as-yet-unidentified recipients, most Australians had never heard of the Sydney University Professor of Poetry. Supposedly jocular vilification in the email exchanges has attracted national condemnation since their unauthorised publication by New Matilda.
Publication has been justified on the basis of public interest. Do we need to know that one of the most senior academics at one of Australia’s most senior universities privately uses language that you’d typically associate with pottymouth characters in South Park?
The person writing these emails is working on developing the new national curriculum. Given that the curriculum will impact on members on the people who he villifies – which as I understand is multiple ethnitcities as well as insults on basis of gender and faith – the public interest defence seems fairly robust.
Hugo, you are 10000 percent correct. Unfortunately the same pollies who are more than happy to usher through laws destroying the right to privacy are suddenly campaigners for individual liberties when their [edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons] mate is affected.