Underwager v. Channel 9 Australia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that the general context involved a controversial subject about which the plaintiff and the defendant were on opposite sides
• observing that the general context involved a controversial subject about which the plaintiff and the defendant were on opposite sides
• concluding statements must rest “on a core of objective evidence” to be provable as true or false under defamation law
• finding that statements made in “heated debate” were more like opinions than factual assertions
• observing that audience to discussion of legal defense tactics “would expect emphatic language on both sides” and therefore “would be likely to recognize that the statements did not represent provable assertions”
• concluding speaker’s statement that the plaintiff was lying was protected opinion because the speaker made the statement in the context of an investigative broadcast program, took the opposite side of the issue from the plaintiff, and used rhetorical language

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).