WEBVTT - Influencers Cry Defamation As Celeb Spellcheck Returns and Hotel Happy Snaps T&Cs

0:00:00.240 --> 0:00:01.240
<v Speaker 1>This is Outspoken.

0:00:01.400 --> 0:00:05.040
<v Speaker 2>The podcast is not afraid to say exactly what you're thinking.

0:00:05.480 --> 0:00:07.520
<v Speaker 1>Our names are Amy Kay and Sophie Torba.

0:00:07.920 --> 0:00:11.840
<v Speaker 2>We're identical triplets, but we often don't have identical opinions,

0:00:12.080 --> 0:00:16.240
<v Speaker 2>so sometimes things can get heated. Outspoken covers all things

0:00:16.320 --> 0:00:20.640
<v Speaker 2>reality TV, influencers, entertainment, and issues facing women.

0:00:21.440 --> 0:00:23.720
<v Speaker 1>That is so fetch thank you.

0:00:27.160 --> 0:00:29.720
<v Speaker 2>I've got quite a spring in my step this Monday morning,

0:00:29.760 --> 0:00:32.600
<v Speaker 2>because there's no better feeling than knowing it is a

0:00:32.640 --> 0:00:36.559
<v Speaker 2>four day working week and it is the Easter long weekend,

0:00:36.760 --> 0:00:38.800
<v Speaker 2>four days off, heaps of chocolate.

0:00:39.159 --> 0:00:40.400
<v Speaker 1>This has sprung up so quickly.

0:00:40.440 --> 0:00:43.040
<v Speaker 2>It's really taken me by surprise, because I think it's

0:00:43.360 --> 0:00:46.360
<v Speaker 2>because they release Hot Cross Buns so early that you know,

0:00:46.400 --> 0:00:49.040
<v Speaker 2>you don't have that starting point to say, oh, the

0:00:49.080 --> 0:00:51.800
<v Speaker 2>Easter period has bene so they've only had Hot Cross

0:00:51.800 --> 0:00:54.160
<v Speaker 2>Buns in the shop for like six months. And you're saying, but.

0:00:54.120 --> 0:00:55.480
<v Speaker 1>That's what I But that's what I'm saying.

0:00:55.480 --> 0:00:57.840
<v Speaker 2>I'm saying if they release them at an appropriate time,

0:00:57.920 --> 0:01:02.000
<v Speaker 2>it kind of signifies that the East defestive period is beginning. Look,

0:01:02.000 --> 0:01:04.360
<v Speaker 2>I'm happy with how early they release them because they're

0:01:04.400 --> 0:01:07.000
<v Speaker 2>quite a staple in my diet, and actually the thought

0:01:07.240 --> 0:01:09.040
<v Speaker 2>that Easter is going to be over in a couple

0:01:09.120 --> 0:01:11.600
<v Speaker 2>of weeks actually depresses me because I think they should

0:01:11.600 --> 0:01:12.920
<v Speaker 2>be an all year round thing.

0:01:13.040 --> 0:01:13.959
<v Speaker 1>Oh, they pretty much are.

0:01:14.280 --> 0:01:16.000
<v Speaker 2>Sophy said to me the other day. She was getting

0:01:16.000 --> 0:01:17.840
<v Speaker 2>depressed that hot cross bunds wouldn't be in stores, and

0:01:17.880 --> 0:01:20.400
<v Speaker 2>I had to remind her that they do keep selling them,

0:01:20.400 --> 0:01:22.119
<v Speaker 2>but they just take off the cross. Did you guys

0:01:22.160 --> 0:01:23.679
<v Speaker 2>see that, Yes, they did that.

0:01:23.840 --> 0:01:25.440
<v Speaker 1>It's not the same. I don't think it's the same.

0:01:25.600 --> 0:01:28.080
<v Speaker 2>Do you know what's also interesting about this weekend coming

0:01:28.160 --> 0:01:30.560
<v Speaker 2>up that for people that actually have daylight savings, like

0:01:30.600 --> 0:01:33.000
<v Speaker 2>an Adelaide, it's going to be over, So it's I

0:01:33.000 --> 0:01:36.200
<v Speaker 2>feel like it's that transition into winter and darkness. Do

0:01:36.200 --> 0:01:37.960
<v Speaker 2>you know what I am enjoying now that it's getting

0:01:37.959 --> 0:01:41.240
<v Speaker 2>a little bit cooler. I've been getting into my matching

0:01:41.280 --> 0:01:44.600
<v Speaker 2>pajama set, but I just look like this massive baby.

0:01:44.640 --> 0:01:47.039
<v Speaker 2>Like I came down and Brandon just burst that laughing

0:01:47.080 --> 0:01:49.360
<v Speaker 2>because it's like, why they match it? Wait, what is

0:01:49.400 --> 0:01:51.680
<v Speaker 2>your matching pajama sex? I don't think I've ever seen this,

0:01:51.680 --> 0:01:54.320
<v Speaker 2>because when we lived together, you used to just wear

0:01:54.400 --> 0:01:55.360
<v Speaker 2>some pineapple pants.

0:01:55.360 --> 0:01:56.240
<v Speaker 1>With a hole in the bump.

0:01:56.280 --> 0:01:59.520
<v Speaker 2>Well, they're a matching pink like we got each other

0:01:59.560 --> 0:02:02.000
<v Speaker 2>the same. Yeah, they've got little teddy bears on them.

0:02:02.120 --> 0:02:03.200
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, they're pretty cute.

0:02:03.640 --> 0:02:06.320
<v Speaker 2>Well, I'm going to look even more tragic because Reyes

0:02:06.360 --> 0:02:08.919
<v Speaker 2>got me an oodie for my birthday and I don't

0:02:08.919 --> 0:02:10.639
<v Speaker 2>want to know. It's got mini mouse on it and

0:02:10.680 --> 0:02:12.639
<v Speaker 2>it's pink. So again, I look like I'm five years old,

0:02:12.680 --> 0:02:13.920
<v Speaker 2>and I just know I'm going to be living in

0:02:13.960 --> 0:02:14.640
<v Speaker 2>it all winter.

0:02:14.960 --> 0:02:15.799
<v Speaker 1>I reckon if I'm.

0:02:15.639 --> 0:02:17.240
<v Speaker 2>Going to invest in one, I'm just going to get

0:02:17.240 --> 0:02:17.959
<v Speaker 2>a plane one.

0:02:18.280 --> 0:02:18.640
<v Speaker 3>I don't know.

0:02:18.680 --> 0:02:20.760
<v Speaker 2>I feel like because I'll be wearing it so much

0:02:20.800 --> 0:02:23.480
<v Speaker 2>that I'll get sick of whatever cartoon characters on that. Now,

0:02:23.560 --> 0:02:25.280
<v Speaker 2>you don't want a plane one because then you might

0:02:25.320 --> 0:02:27.480
<v Speaker 2>actually wear it out to the shops, whereas I know

0:02:27.600 --> 0:02:29.440
<v Speaker 2>that I can't wear it out of the house because

0:02:29.440 --> 0:02:31.519
<v Speaker 2>I look like I'm five. I kind of respect someone

0:02:31.560 --> 0:02:33.160
<v Speaker 2>if they do choose to wear it at the shops.

0:02:34.120 --> 0:02:35.880
<v Speaker 2>I don't know, Like that's why I'm not getting one,

0:02:35.880 --> 0:02:37.760
<v Speaker 2>because I honestly would wear it to the shops with

0:02:37.880 --> 0:02:39.960
<v Speaker 2>your big ug boots. Yeah, I wear my rug boots

0:02:40.000 --> 0:02:41.760
<v Speaker 2>at the shops. I honestly don't give a shit. And

0:02:41.760 --> 0:02:43.680
<v Speaker 2>the shops are just across the road from me as well,

0:02:43.760 --> 0:02:45.840
<v Speaker 2>so I'm there all the time. It is so funny

0:02:45.840 --> 0:02:49.040
<v Speaker 2>because Amy is literally at the shop so often that

0:02:49.120 --> 0:02:52.200
<v Speaker 2>there's a girl working there in the self service checkout

0:02:52.240 --> 0:02:53.560
<v Speaker 2>area that knows you by name.

0:02:53.800 --> 0:02:54.120
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:02:54.160 --> 0:02:57.040
<v Speaker 2>And I was there one weekend and I was dressed

0:02:57.040 --> 0:02:59.720
<v Speaker 2>in just jeans and a white top, and she mistook

0:02:59.720 --> 0:03:01.519
<v Speaker 2>me for you, And she's like, no, she did, she

0:03:01.760 --> 0:03:05.280
<v Speaker 2>knew it was whatever. She's like, wow, you look really

0:03:05.360 --> 0:03:07.920
<v Speaker 2>nice today. What are you all dressed up for? And

0:03:07.960 --> 0:03:10.400
<v Speaker 2>I was thinking, God, I must come here looking like crap.

0:03:10.400 --> 0:03:12.800
<v Speaker 2>If you think I'm dressed up. I actually think after

0:03:12.880 --> 0:03:15.680
<v Speaker 2>COVID that jeans at the top is very dressed up.

0:03:15.720 --> 0:03:18.440
<v Speaker 2>Like that's my go to formal attire these days.

0:03:18.720 --> 0:03:19.760
<v Speaker 1>I hate wearing jeans.

0:03:20.240 --> 0:03:21.920
<v Speaker 2>Just back to Easter quickly. I kind of want to

0:03:21.919 --> 0:03:24.079
<v Speaker 2>throw Sophie under the bus here because we were having

0:03:24.120 --> 0:03:26.600
<v Speaker 2>a little chat off Mike about how East is coming up,

0:03:26.639 --> 0:03:29.200
<v Speaker 2>and so said, oh, Brandon and I have just decided

0:03:29.200 --> 0:03:31.120
<v Speaker 2>that we're not going to buy each other chocolate. We're

0:03:31.120 --> 0:03:33.600
<v Speaker 2>just going to spend fifty dollars on each other for Easter,

0:03:33.680 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 2>and I have to ask you on Mike, Sophie, have

0:03:35.760 --> 0:03:39.680
<v Speaker 2>you previously spent fifty dollars on Brandon in chocolate?

0:03:39.880 --> 0:03:42.520
<v Speaker 1>Like, have you bought the chocolate? That's very extravagant.

0:03:42.600 --> 0:03:46.320
<v Speaker 2>I haven't, but we've decided because we're trying to be healthy,

0:03:46.720 --> 0:03:48.840
<v Speaker 2>but we want to get a present. So what can

0:03:48.880 --> 0:03:50.760
<v Speaker 2>you get for a present for twenty dollars? Why not

0:03:50.840 --> 0:03:52.520
<v Speaker 2>just save the money? Aren't you saving for her?

0:03:52.800 --> 0:03:53.640
<v Speaker 1>Festive time?

0:03:53.760 --> 0:03:57.360
<v Speaker 2>It's a festive time, Okay, you're supposed to celebrates the best,

0:03:57.360 --> 0:03:59.160
<v Speaker 2>if the right word to destrive, I think you can

0:03:59.280 --> 0:04:02.280
<v Speaker 2>use festive. It's like a fun time you're around family members.

0:04:02.440 --> 0:04:04.480
<v Speaker 2>It is funny you say that, though, so because Reese

0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:05.960
<v Speaker 2>told me not to buy them anything and he didn't

0:04:06.000 --> 0:04:07.960
<v Speaker 2>want any chocolate, But there wasn't a mention of fifty

0:04:07.960 --> 0:04:11.440
<v Speaker 2>dollars gifts. Well, I suppose just different, aren't they. I've

0:04:11.480 --> 0:04:14.520
<v Speaker 2>actually booked a tennis court at a national park here

0:04:14.560 --> 0:04:17.640
<v Speaker 2>in Adelaide for our Easter Sunday, and I'm so excited

0:04:17.680 --> 0:04:20.039
<v Speaker 2>because our mom's going to be there and Reese's mum

0:04:20.279 --> 0:04:21.560
<v Speaker 2>is going to be there, and I feel like they'll

0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 2>team together and put on a pretty epic easter a

0:04:24.040 --> 0:04:27.960
<v Speaker 2>hunt for us. Okay, someone did write into the podcast

0:04:28.240 --> 0:04:32.560
<v Speaker 2>a listener asking whether you were concealing an engagement ring

0:04:32.600 --> 0:04:34.919
<v Speaker 2>on your hand? Is this now that the are you

0:04:34.960 --> 0:04:36.680
<v Speaker 2>trying to like drop little hints now that the in

0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:39.800
<v Speaker 2>laws are all meeting and stuff? Oh no, No, It's

0:04:39.839 --> 0:04:43.039
<v Speaker 2>quite funny that someone like spired that out, because when

0:04:43.080 --> 0:04:46.400
<v Speaker 2>I saw that my hand was covered in the photo,

0:04:46.400 --> 0:04:48.760
<v Speaker 2>I just couldn't unsee it, Like it just looked so weird.

0:04:48.839 --> 0:04:50.760
<v Speaker 2>I don't know how I didn't even notice. But no,

0:04:50.839 --> 0:04:53.320
<v Speaker 2>I'm not engaged. We're just going back to the East

0:04:53.320 --> 0:04:55.280
<v Speaker 2>Egg hunt. I do want to hear if other people

0:04:55.360 --> 0:04:57.880
<v Speaker 2>do this in their twenties and thirties. Do your parents

0:04:57.920 --> 0:05:00.279
<v Speaker 2>still do an East Egg Hunt for you? Go to

0:05:00.320 --> 0:05:02.920
<v Speaker 2>our Facebook community, which has outspoken the podcast.

0:05:03.320 --> 0:05:05.400
<v Speaker 1>I feel a bit sad about doing this.

0:05:06.920 --> 0:05:10.159
<v Speaker 4>Let's rather take the magic out of it, preparing the

0:05:10.240 --> 0:05:11.640
<v Speaker 4>chocolates for the bunny.

0:05:11.720 --> 0:05:15.000
<v Speaker 2>But I suppose that's what becoming an adult.

0:05:15.000 --> 0:05:18.479
<v Speaker 1>It's all about a Yeah, that's right.

0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:22.080
<v Speaker 2>A hotel in Brisbane, famous for its instagrammable aesthetic, has

0:05:22.200 --> 0:05:25.159
<v Speaker 2>ordered a micro influencer to remove photos from her visit

0:05:25.680 --> 0:05:29.159
<v Speaker 2>despite paying to stay at the Calisle Hotel. Britt Daisy

0:05:29.240 --> 0:05:31.480
<v Speaker 2>was told she had to remove happy snaps taken at

0:05:31.480 --> 0:05:35.760
<v Speaker 2>the hotel because it contradicted their commercial photography policy. Brit

0:05:35.800 --> 0:05:39.000
<v Speaker 2>joins us on the show to tell us what exactly happened.

0:05:40.080 --> 0:05:45.359
<v Speaker 5>So essentially, this hotel in Brisbane called the Kalis, my

0:05:45.400 --> 0:05:48.000
<v Speaker 5>friends and I we kind of like double in a

0:05:48.080 --> 0:05:52.080
<v Speaker 5>bit of micro influencing, and we saw this hotel all

0:05:52.160 --> 0:05:55.800
<v Speaker 5>over Instagram because a lot of bloggers have stayed there,

0:05:56.080 --> 0:05:58.520
<v Speaker 5>and that's how we found out about it, because it's

0:05:58.600 --> 0:06:01.839
<v Speaker 5>just an Instagram as dream like, so ascetic, so beautiful.

0:06:02.279 --> 0:06:05.800
<v Speaker 3>So we paid to have like a little holiday there.

0:06:05.839 --> 0:06:09.160
<v Speaker 5>But I guess when we booked it, one of the incentives,

0:06:09.160 --> 0:06:11.560
<v Speaker 5>because it's quite expensive, one of our incentives was that

0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:13.520
<v Speaker 5>we will get a lot of content creation done there

0:06:13.560 --> 0:06:19.360
<v Speaker 5>because it's just it's super asthetic, so it's like perfect

0:06:19.440 --> 0:06:20.960
<v Speaker 5>content creation space.

0:06:21.120 --> 0:06:22.960
<v Speaker 3>So we booked it and we.

0:06:22.920 --> 0:06:25.720
<v Speaker 5>Went and when we checked in, we obviously had to

0:06:25.800 --> 0:06:30.520
<v Speaker 5>sign I guess a like forms upon check in, but

0:06:30.760 --> 0:06:34.440
<v Speaker 5>I've experience was a bit chaotic, so Guilty didn't really

0:06:34.480 --> 0:06:38.440
<v Speaker 5>read the forms, just signed it and we went there

0:06:38.720 --> 0:06:41.880
<v Speaker 5>and took heaps and heaps of Instagram stories and of course,

0:06:42.000 --> 0:06:44.560
<v Speaker 5>like I would just tag the Kalal in all my

0:06:44.600 --> 0:06:48.080
<v Speaker 5>stories and post because we were having such a nice

0:06:48.080 --> 0:06:50.160
<v Speaker 5>time at the hotel, like it was such a pleasurable

0:06:50.160 --> 0:06:53.080
<v Speaker 5>experience and everything was so beautiful that I guess you

0:06:53.720 --> 0:06:56.480
<v Speaker 5>when you as a micro influencer or as a blogger,

0:06:56.800 --> 0:06:58.360
<v Speaker 5>when you love something, you.

0:06:58.279 --> 0:07:00.120
<v Speaker 3>Post about it because.

0:07:00.160 --> 0:07:04.280
<v Speaker 5>It's getting the name out there and you're usually it's

0:07:04.279 --> 0:07:07.839
<v Speaker 5>like a symbiotic transaction, like you're somewhere beautiful, you tag

0:07:07.960 --> 0:07:10.880
<v Speaker 5>them and people see it. And I had heaps and

0:07:10.920 --> 0:07:15.280
<v Speaker 5>heaps of friends and like even just my followers replying

0:07:15.320 --> 0:07:17.520
<v Speaker 5>to my stories being like this hotel is amazing, like

0:07:17.600 --> 0:07:19.960
<v Speaker 5>I want to stay there, and I was like, yes,

0:07:20.040 --> 0:07:23.360
<v Speaker 5>so it's honestly so amazing, Like I couldn't speak higher

0:07:23.360 --> 0:07:25.440
<v Speaker 5>out of it. So we took a bunch of photos

0:07:25.480 --> 0:07:29.040
<v Speaker 5>and then obviously uploaded them on our feed, and then

0:07:29.040 --> 0:07:32.440
<v Speaker 5>when we got back, I got a message from the

0:07:32.480 --> 0:07:36.640
<v Speaker 5>Calile themselves, and the general gist was that as guests

0:07:36.680 --> 0:07:41.040
<v Speaker 5>are not permitted to have any cross promotions in their

0:07:41.040 --> 0:07:44.520
<v Speaker 5>photos of the Calisle, so you're not allowed to tag

0:07:44.640 --> 0:07:48.480
<v Speaker 5>any brands, and the photos that I had on my feed,

0:07:49.680 --> 0:07:52.400
<v Speaker 5>like none of them were sponsored or paid posts. It

0:07:52.560 --> 0:07:55.640
<v Speaker 5>was just like stuff that I had been gifted and

0:07:55.680 --> 0:07:58.320
<v Speaker 5>clothing that I was wearing of brands that I work with,

0:07:58.360 --> 0:08:01.280
<v Speaker 5>so obviously I tagged them. And I was also tagging

0:08:01.320 --> 0:08:03.600
<v Speaker 5>the Kalisal because that's where I was, and I thought

0:08:04.320 --> 0:08:05.120
<v Speaker 5>like that would.

0:08:04.960 --> 0:08:06.600
<v Speaker 3>Be a good thing for them.

0:08:07.000 --> 0:08:10.920
<v Speaker 5>And then they yeah, so they they messaged me, and

0:08:10.920 --> 0:08:13.360
<v Speaker 5>they also messaged my two friends who stayed with me,

0:08:13.480 --> 0:08:15.480
<v Speaker 5>who were also doing the same thing, and they basically said,

0:08:15.520 --> 0:08:17.960
<v Speaker 5>you have to take down the photos. And I read

0:08:17.960 --> 0:08:20.640
<v Speaker 5>it and I was like, wow, that's unlike anything I've

0:08:20.640 --> 0:08:24.200
<v Speaker 5>ever heard before, because usually it's hotels being like, oh

0:08:24.240 --> 0:08:27.280
<v Speaker 5>can you tag us, or like a restaurant usually if

0:08:27.280 --> 0:08:28.960
<v Speaker 5>you take a photo there, they will ask you to

0:08:29.000 --> 0:08:31.880
<v Speaker 5>tag them because like they want that exposure.

0:08:32.400 --> 0:08:33.200
<v Speaker 3>But they didn't.

0:08:33.240 --> 0:08:34.720
<v Speaker 5>So, yeah, they told us to take it down, so

0:08:34.880 --> 0:08:38.400
<v Speaker 5>I assumed they just meant take off any tags that

0:08:38.600 --> 0:08:41.559
<v Speaker 5>stated that I was at the Kalisal, So I untagged

0:08:41.559 --> 0:08:44.520
<v Speaker 5>them from all my photos and I took away the

0:08:44.760 --> 0:08:48.280
<v Speaker 5>GEO tag and I thought it would be fine, and

0:08:48.320 --> 0:08:52.319
<v Speaker 5>then they emailed again, DMed me again and were like, oh,

0:08:52.320 --> 0:08:57.000
<v Speaker 5>you still haven't like removed the promotional messages like and

0:08:57.000 --> 0:09:00.520
<v Speaker 5>then they re explained to their policy that you're not

0:09:00.559 --> 0:09:04.880
<v Speaker 5>allowed any promotional messages on photos taken in their premises.

0:09:05.600 --> 0:09:08.640
<v Speaker 3>So yeah, I had to, they said, I had.

0:09:08.760 --> 0:09:11.520
<v Speaker 5>They wanted me to remove the photos, but I didn't

0:09:11.559 --> 0:09:15.320
<v Speaker 5>want to, and so we basically compromised by I just

0:09:15.600 --> 0:09:18.200
<v Speaker 5>took off the promotional messages that were in my caption

0:09:18.400 --> 0:09:23.080
<v Speaker 5>and I removed all the tags, and yeah, one of

0:09:23.080 --> 0:09:26.800
<v Speaker 5>the photos was at like literally in front of one

0:09:26.840 --> 0:09:29.560
<v Speaker 5>of their elevators, so you absolutely could not tell I

0:09:29.640 --> 0:09:32.439
<v Speaker 5>was even at the Kala Hotel. And they still wanted

0:09:32.480 --> 0:09:35.560
<v Speaker 5>that taken down because I had just like i'd written

0:09:35.559 --> 0:09:39.040
<v Speaker 5>a caption saying like so stoked, I didn't spill anything

0:09:39.040 --> 0:09:41.080
<v Speaker 5>on my all light outfit, and then I just had

0:09:41.120 --> 0:09:44.120
<v Speaker 5>pants by glasses, and they wanted the pants by Glasses

0:09:44.200 --> 0:09:46.920
<v Speaker 5>removed because that was, in their eyes.

0:09:46.920 --> 0:09:47.920
<v Speaker 3>Promotional messaging.

0:09:48.240 --> 0:09:50.560
<v Speaker 5>And I explained to them like, no, I wasn't even

0:09:50.640 --> 0:09:53.520
<v Speaker 5>that wasn't even a collub like I literally am telling

0:09:53.520 --> 0:09:56.160
<v Speaker 5>my followers where my pants were from and.

0:09:56.120 --> 0:09:57.320
<v Speaker 3>You can't even tell where I am.

0:09:57.440 --> 0:09:59.800
<v Speaker 5>And then they kind of came back being like, yes,

0:10:00.080 --> 0:10:04.360
<v Speaker 5>it still breaches our policy. So basically, when I got

0:10:04.760 --> 0:10:06.760
<v Speaker 5>that message and when my friends got it as well.

0:10:07.200 --> 0:10:10.640
<v Speaker 5>I went to one of my influencer friends who has

0:10:10.720 --> 0:10:12.480
<v Speaker 5>like a lot more followers in me. She's quite well known,

0:10:12.520 --> 0:10:15.280
<v Speaker 5>she's got about three hundred K, and she was actually

0:10:15.320 --> 0:10:17.560
<v Speaker 5>staying at the Calaal around the same time as I was,

0:10:17.600 --> 0:10:19.640
<v Speaker 5>and I noticed she had a lot of photos on

0:10:19.679 --> 0:10:23.880
<v Speaker 5>her grid tagging other brands in the Kalaal premises.

0:10:23.920 --> 0:10:25.680
<v Speaker 3>So I messaged her and I said, oh, did you

0:10:25.679 --> 0:10:27.960
<v Speaker 3>get this as well? What do you think? And she

0:10:28.240 --> 0:10:29.839
<v Speaker 3>was like shocked by the whole thing.

0:10:29.920 --> 0:10:31.800
<v Speaker 5>She was like, dude, it's so crazy, She's like, but

0:10:31.880 --> 0:10:33.880
<v Speaker 5>that's why I never tagged them in any of my

0:10:34.040 --> 0:10:37.200
<v Speaker 5>stories or posts, because I knew that if I tagged them,

0:10:37.480 --> 0:10:39.640
<v Speaker 5>they'd be able to kind of like track that I'd

0:10:39.640 --> 0:10:41.600
<v Speaker 5>been there and they might see that I have those

0:10:41.640 --> 0:10:44.520
<v Speaker 5>photos up. And she's like, I had heard from other

0:10:44.559 --> 0:10:47.840
<v Speaker 5>bloggers that they don't like it when you upload brand

0:10:47.920 --> 0:10:51.720
<v Speaker 5>images taken in their premises. So that's why she didn't

0:10:51.720 --> 0:10:55.040
<v Speaker 5>do it. And they haven't messaged her obviously, because it

0:10:55.040 --> 0:10:57.320
<v Speaker 5>hasn't been on their radar that she stayed there and

0:10:57.320 --> 0:11:00.319
<v Speaker 5>took photos because she never once tagged them. But it's

0:11:00.360 --> 0:11:02.920
<v Speaker 5>just crazy because that's creating an environment where bloggers are

0:11:02.960 --> 0:11:06.440
<v Speaker 5>going to go there and not ever tag them because

0:11:06.440 --> 0:11:10.440
<v Speaker 5>they don't want to be tracked down. And obviously one

0:11:10.480 --> 0:11:12.800
<v Speaker 5>of the biggest incentives to stay there is because it's

0:11:12.800 --> 0:11:15.880
<v Speaker 5>so ascetic and it's so perfect for content creation. And

0:11:16.280 --> 0:11:18.840
<v Speaker 5>I guess if you're paying money to stay somewhere, you

0:11:18.880 --> 0:11:20.960
<v Speaker 5>want to get the most you can out of it,

0:11:21.440 --> 0:11:25.040
<v Speaker 5>and if that means not tagging them at all, you

0:11:25.080 --> 0:11:27.439
<v Speaker 5>will do that. So then you can still take some

0:11:27.440 --> 0:11:30.280
<v Speaker 5>photos and upload them and then you can't be told

0:11:30.320 --> 0:11:34.280
<v Speaker 5>to remove them. Even like Shiny Grimman uploaded a photo

0:11:34.280 --> 0:11:36.920
<v Speaker 5>on her unfilleded account today or yesterday. I think it

0:11:37.000 --> 0:11:39.760
<v Speaker 5>was saying that she got in trouble for taking the

0:11:39.760 --> 0:11:42.079
<v Speaker 5>photo and I could tell that it was taken in

0:11:42.120 --> 0:11:44.040
<v Speaker 5>the Calile. She obviously didn't tag it or anything, but

0:11:44.280 --> 0:11:46.640
<v Speaker 5>you could tell so. And she's huge. She's got over

0:11:46.679 --> 0:11:49.720
<v Speaker 5>a million followers, so in my eyes, her tagging that

0:11:49.760 --> 0:11:53.320
<v Speaker 5>she was at the Cali would bring huge attraction to

0:11:53.360 --> 0:11:57.200
<v Speaker 5>the hotel. So it's clearly not just micro influences that

0:11:57.240 --> 0:12:00.160
<v Speaker 5>they don't want posting at the hotel. It's also these

0:12:00.280 --> 0:12:02.760
<v Speaker 5>massive ones which could bring them so much business. So

0:12:02.840 --> 0:12:07.880
<v Speaker 5>it's crazy. I just was a bit surprised about the

0:12:07.880 --> 0:12:13.079
<v Speaker 5>their ability to dictate what photos you put up publicly

0:12:13.920 --> 0:12:17.520
<v Speaker 5>if you're a paying patron, like you're not in any

0:12:17.520 --> 0:12:19.560
<v Speaker 5>sort of agreement with them. I guess you sign on

0:12:19.679 --> 0:12:22.720
<v Speaker 5>arrival apparently. I mean that's my bart. I didn't see

0:12:22.720 --> 0:12:25.520
<v Speaker 5>that part, which I'm guessing a lot of influencers don't

0:12:25.559 --> 0:12:27.360
<v Speaker 5>because it seems that there's been a few who have

0:12:27.400 --> 0:12:31.320
<v Speaker 5>had this same problem. But it's a bit I guess

0:12:31.320 --> 0:12:34.400
<v Speaker 5>it takes away a bit of your agency and like

0:12:34.440 --> 0:12:37.720
<v Speaker 5>it's not a private power property if people are paying

0:12:37.760 --> 0:12:40.640
<v Speaker 5>to stay there, So that's where the bit of the

0:12:40.679 --> 0:12:41.240
<v Speaker 5>tension is.

0:12:41.760 --> 0:12:44.160
<v Speaker 3>I think. Well, I think, obviously, because.

0:12:43.960 --> 0:12:47.720
<v Speaker 5>It is so beautiful, a lot of brands and influencers

0:12:47.760 --> 0:12:50.240
<v Speaker 5>would want to shoot there. And I do one hundred

0:12:50.240 --> 0:12:53.440
<v Speaker 5>percent understand if you know you're launching a brand and

0:12:53.480 --> 0:12:55.960
<v Speaker 5>you've gone there and you've taken your photo shoot that

0:12:56.000 --> 0:13:00.640
<v Speaker 5>you're then going to sell your products from, that would

0:13:00.640 --> 0:13:02.640
<v Speaker 5>of course, like you would need their permission and you

0:13:02.679 --> 0:13:05.360
<v Speaker 5>probably need to pay them like your location fees.

0:13:05.880 --> 0:13:09.160
<v Speaker 3>But I think the reason why like that. I spoke

0:13:09.200 --> 0:13:09.439
<v Speaker 3>to my.

0:13:09.400 --> 0:13:13.200
<v Speaker 5>PhD supervisor about it because I thought it was just

0:13:13.240 --> 0:13:16.440
<v Speaker 5>so crazy because my whole PhD is about like visibility

0:13:16.480 --> 0:13:20.319
<v Speaker 5>and exposure being a currency in the social media landscape,

0:13:20.480 --> 0:13:23.559
<v Speaker 5>and that is how this hotel pretty much got its

0:13:23.600 --> 0:13:27.839
<v Speaker 5>reputation because everyone saw it all over Instagram and influencers

0:13:27.840 --> 0:13:30.920
<v Speaker 5>were taking beautiful photos there and that got its name

0:13:30.960 --> 0:13:34.760
<v Speaker 5>out there. So my supervisor was assuming that maybe they

0:13:34.800 --> 0:13:37.760
<v Speaker 5>were in a legal issue at one point which made

0:13:37.760 --> 0:13:40.559
<v Speaker 5>them just want to not be associated with any other

0:13:40.679 --> 0:13:46.760
<v Speaker 5>brands just to safeguard themselves or another I guess potential

0:13:46.920 --> 0:13:51.360
<v Speaker 5>reason would be they want control over all brands that

0:13:51.400 --> 0:13:53.359
<v Speaker 5>are going to be associated with their hotels.

0:13:53.400 --> 0:13:56.040
<v Speaker 3>So I mean, there's not.

0:13:56.080 --> 0:13:59.480
<v Speaker 5>Many harmful brands out there that you can really think

0:13:59.559 --> 0:14:03.080
<v Speaker 5>of that like taint the reputation of the hotel, and

0:14:03.120 --> 0:14:07.280
<v Speaker 5>I think most consumers are quite the consumers are quite

0:14:07.320 --> 0:14:10.800
<v Speaker 5>conscious these days, and I'm sure like seeing an influencer

0:14:10.880 --> 0:14:14.000
<v Speaker 5>promoting a brand in a hotel with just the location

0:14:14.160 --> 0:14:18.800
<v Speaker 5>setting tagged, wouldn't not many people would associate the brand

0:14:18.920 --> 0:14:22.400
<v Speaker 5>and then the location as well. But they don't even like,

0:14:22.480 --> 0:14:25.840
<v Speaker 5>they don't even care if the location isn't tagged. It's

0:14:25.880 --> 0:14:27.920
<v Speaker 5>more that if it's on their premises at all and

0:14:27.960 --> 0:14:32.080
<v Speaker 5>you can see any part of their interior exterior in

0:14:32.120 --> 0:14:36.360
<v Speaker 5>the photo, then they don't want any promotional messaging. And

0:14:36.920 --> 0:14:38.960
<v Speaker 5>it doesn't matter if like the Calole name is in

0:14:39.000 --> 0:14:40.600
<v Speaker 5>there or whatnot, Like as long as you're on their

0:14:40.640 --> 0:14:43.680
<v Speaker 5>premises and the photo is showcasing any part of their premises,

0:14:44.000 --> 0:14:47.480
<v Speaker 5>then they just don't want any promotional messaging in the

0:14:47.520 --> 0:14:50.160
<v Speaker 5>caption or on the photo. I've spoken to a few

0:14:50.160 --> 0:14:53.920
<v Speaker 5>other micro influencers and it kind of left a bit

0:14:53.920 --> 0:14:56.440
<v Speaker 5>of a bad taste in our mouth. Like we had

0:14:56.480 --> 0:14:58.600
<v Speaker 5>such a favorable stay at the hotel and we loved

0:14:58.640 --> 0:15:00.480
<v Speaker 5>it so much and we couldn't speak high I like

0:15:00.600 --> 0:15:02.840
<v Speaker 5>hire of it, and now we're a bit like, I

0:15:02.880 --> 0:15:05.320
<v Speaker 5>don't know if I'd stay there again, because you know,

0:15:05.360 --> 0:15:08.200
<v Speaker 5>if you're staying somewhere so beautiful and you have that

0:15:08.240 --> 0:15:11.200
<v Speaker 5>like content creation mindset, of course you're going to want

0:15:11.240 --> 0:15:13.560
<v Speaker 5>to take photos there. And I mean, you can one

0:15:13.600 --> 0:15:16.520
<v Speaker 5>hundred percent go there and not tag any other brands

0:15:16.560 --> 0:15:18.360
<v Speaker 5>and upload photos and that's fine.

0:15:18.720 --> 0:15:20.360
<v Speaker 3>But I guess one.

0:15:20.200 --> 0:15:23.800
<v Speaker 5>Of the justifications for spending the money to stay there

0:15:23.920 --> 0:15:27.000
<v Speaker 5>is because you can also, you know, take beautiful content

0:15:27.120 --> 0:15:30.840
<v Speaker 5>for the brand that you work with, And I guess

0:15:30.880 --> 0:15:34.960
<v Speaker 5>that kind of it kind of takes that away, and

0:15:35.000 --> 0:15:38.040
<v Speaker 5>now a lot of influencers are talking poorly of the

0:15:38.080 --> 0:15:42.440
<v Speaker 5>hotel because it's just unlike anything that we've ever experienced

0:15:42.440 --> 0:15:45.880
<v Speaker 5>with any other business. So I think from a PR perspective,

0:15:46.120 --> 0:15:49.960
<v Speaker 5>it's going to discourage influencers from staying there, and that's

0:15:50.040 --> 0:15:55.600
<v Speaker 5>how they got famous. And they've also sent bloggers there

0:15:55.680 --> 0:15:59.400
<v Speaker 5>and obviously paid bloggers to stay there, and that content's

0:15:59.440 --> 0:16:03.160
<v Speaker 5>been fine because obviously they've only been promoting the hotel,

0:16:03.720 --> 0:16:07.000
<v Speaker 5>but it's kind of like you can't use I mean

0:16:07.040 --> 0:16:10.560
<v Speaker 5>you can, but it's a bit of mixed messaging when

0:16:10.560 --> 0:16:13.120
<v Speaker 5>you're paying bloggers to stay there and promote it and

0:16:13.160 --> 0:16:16.120
<v Speaker 5>then telling other bloggers who have paid to stay there

0:16:16.440 --> 0:16:19.480
<v Speaker 5>that they can't upload photos unless you're only tagging the

0:16:19.520 --> 0:16:22.280
<v Speaker 5>Kalis because we've paid to stay there and we don't

0:16:22.320 --> 0:16:25.520
<v Speaker 5>have any deal with or we're not doing any work

0:16:25.520 --> 0:16:29.480
<v Speaker 5>with the Kalis. So it's kind of I guess a

0:16:29.480 --> 0:16:32.960
<v Speaker 5>bit of dissonance between whether they want influencer marketing or

0:16:33.000 --> 0:16:36.120
<v Speaker 5>they don't, Like they clearly value influencer marketing if they're

0:16:36.400 --> 0:16:39.520
<v Speaker 5>getting influencers to stay there for them, but then they

0:16:39.600 --> 0:16:43.000
<v Speaker 5>only want those chosen influencers to be posting about them,

0:16:43.160 --> 0:16:45.360
<v Speaker 5>so that in itself is a bit confusing.

0:16:46.800 --> 0:16:49.000
<v Speaker 2>Now that it's just the three of us, I feel

0:16:49.000 --> 0:16:51.520
<v Speaker 2>like there's a lot to unpack because I'm in two

0:16:51.720 --> 0:16:53.800
<v Speaker 2>minds about this hotel's policy.

0:16:53.840 --> 0:16:55.200
<v Speaker 1>What did you guys think about it?

0:16:55.360 --> 0:16:55.640
<v Speaker 3>Really?

0:16:55.640 --> 0:16:58.200
<v Speaker 2>I'm surprised you're in two minds about it because when

0:16:58.200 --> 0:17:00.760
<v Speaker 2>I first heard this story, I could not believe it

0:17:00.800 --> 0:17:04.560
<v Speaker 2>because from a pr perspective, if you're a hotel like this,

0:17:04.920 --> 0:17:09.320
<v Speaker 2>you want influencers tagging you in content. And I feel

0:17:09.320 --> 0:17:12.159
<v Speaker 2>like it's a little bit hypocritical of the hotel because

0:17:12.400 --> 0:17:15.919
<v Speaker 2>they are known as an influencer hotel, and originally it

0:17:16.000 --> 0:17:18.800
<v Speaker 2>is influencers who have made this hotel, and it seems

0:17:18.800 --> 0:17:21.040
<v Speaker 2>a little bit odd that they're now telling people, actually, no,

0:17:21.320 --> 0:17:22.480
<v Speaker 2>do not tag us.

0:17:22.359 --> 0:17:23.080
<v Speaker 1>In your content.

0:17:23.200 --> 0:17:25.280
<v Speaker 2>But do you think that they're at a stage now

0:17:25.320 --> 0:17:28.480
<v Speaker 2>where they don't actually need influencers to promote them. They're

0:17:28.480 --> 0:17:31.080
<v Speaker 2>big enough as it is. I feel like they perhaps

0:17:31.119 --> 0:17:33.400
<v Speaker 2>are at a stage where they want to be exclusive

0:17:33.440 --> 0:17:35.919
<v Speaker 2>and choose the influencers and brands that they choose to

0:17:35.960 --> 0:17:38.120
<v Speaker 2>work with. I don't think that's true at all, because,

0:17:38.160 --> 0:17:41.240
<v Speaker 2>as Britt mentioned in the interview, the likes of Shane

0:17:41.320 --> 0:17:44.160
<v Speaker 2>Grimman were told not to take photos at the Carlosle Hotel. Well,

0:17:44.160 --> 0:17:47.240
<v Speaker 2>it's really interesting when you think about the commercial aspect

0:17:47.400 --> 0:17:50.040
<v Speaker 2>of this. So the hotel doesn't earn any of the

0:17:50.119 --> 0:17:53.280
<v Speaker 2>money that the influencer is actually earning of taking a

0:17:53.280 --> 0:17:57.359
<v Speaker 2>photo in their very esthetic hotel. So I feel like

0:17:57.440 --> 0:18:00.480
<v Speaker 2>if you're a paying guest, then that kind of is

0:18:00.520 --> 0:18:03.040
<v Speaker 2>the narrative. However, if you're rocking up to the hotel

0:18:03.600 --> 0:18:06.440
<v Speaker 2>and using it as a backdrop to take brand photos,

0:18:06.600 --> 0:18:09.000
<v Speaker 2>I don't think people are just randomly rocking up to

0:18:09.040 --> 0:18:11.399
<v Speaker 2>the hotel and taking photos. I think they're staying as guests,

0:18:11.520 --> 0:18:13.879
<v Speaker 2>or they're going to the restaurant at the hotel.

0:18:13.960 --> 0:18:15.920
<v Speaker 1>No, I think people are. It happens a lot.

0:18:16.000 --> 0:18:18.960
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I've seen influencers vlogging about how they take

0:18:19.000 --> 0:18:20.960
<v Speaker 2>their photos, and they go and stand out the front

0:18:21.000 --> 0:18:24.080
<v Speaker 2>of like random rich people's houses and pretend that it's

0:18:24.119 --> 0:18:24.639
<v Speaker 2>their house.

0:18:24.640 --> 0:18:25.520
<v Speaker 1>Oh, it's so funny.

0:18:25.520 --> 0:18:27.880
<v Speaker 2>I have to butt in because I was on trip

0:18:27.920 --> 0:18:31.800
<v Speaker 2>Advisor just checking out information about the hotel, and the

0:18:31.840 --> 0:18:35.440
<v Speaker 2>first review that popped up was that said overrun with influencers.

0:18:35.520 --> 0:18:37.200
<v Speaker 2>If you want to feel like you're at a cheap

0:18:37.200 --> 0:18:38.280
<v Speaker 2>hotel on the Gold Coast.

0:18:38.359 --> 0:18:38.879
<v Speaker 1>This is for you.

0:18:39.320 --> 0:18:42.040
<v Speaker 2>Don't forget your boat shoes and white linen shirts. Boys

0:18:42.040 --> 0:18:44.080
<v Speaker 2>and girls. You must be sure to pack your most

0:18:44.160 --> 0:18:47.440
<v Speaker 2>instagrammable outfits. The hotel is beautifully designed, but a real

0:18:47.480 --> 0:18:49.240
<v Speaker 2>miss on the guests. If you'd like to not be

0:18:49.280 --> 0:18:51.080
<v Speaker 2>able to swim in your hotel, Paul, this is for

0:18:51.160 --> 0:18:53.840
<v Speaker 2>you and the pool stuff aren't interested in finding somewhere

0:18:53.880 --> 0:18:56.160
<v Speaker 2>for you better to stay in the sanctuary of your room.

0:18:56.160 --> 0:18:58.919
<v Speaker 2>If you ask me, the thing is the photos in

0:18:59.040 --> 0:19:03.000
<v Speaker 2>question that posted you couldn't even tell that they were

0:19:03.040 --> 0:19:05.119
<v Speaker 2>at the hotel. I mean one of the photos, as

0:19:05.160 --> 0:19:07.320
<v Speaker 2>she said, was in front of a lift and the

0:19:07.359 --> 0:19:09.760
<v Speaker 2>other was in front of a white wall. But she's

0:19:09.960 --> 0:19:12.560
<v Speaker 2>tagged the hotel and they've gone take it down.

0:19:12.640 --> 0:19:13.400
<v Speaker 1>I feel like we need.

0:19:13.320 --> 0:19:15.800
<v Speaker 2>To take a look at what the Calai Hotel's rules

0:19:15.840 --> 0:19:17.760
<v Speaker 2>actually are about photography.

0:19:18.040 --> 0:19:20.760
<v Speaker 1>So on their website they have a Frequently.

0:19:20.320 --> 0:19:24.280
<v Speaker 2>Asked Questions section and there is an area called photo,

0:19:24.440 --> 0:19:27.960
<v Speaker 2>video and commercial use. So they say, while we passionately

0:19:28.000 --> 0:19:32.600
<v Speaker 2>support creative initiatives, any activity, including photography and videography of

0:19:32.640 --> 0:19:36.040
<v Speaker 2>a commercial or promotional nature, is not permitted anywhere within

0:19:36.080 --> 0:19:39.400
<v Speaker 2>the hotel without the prior written approval of hotel management,

0:19:39.640 --> 0:19:42.679
<v Speaker 2>and in the case of photography slash videography without an

0:19:42.680 --> 0:19:46.399
<v Speaker 2>authorized location acknowledgment. Hotel management has the right to counsel

0:19:46.400 --> 0:19:50.760
<v Speaker 2>accommodations and require the immediate seation of any activity taking

0:19:50.800 --> 0:19:54.639
<v Speaker 2>place in breach of this condition. Unauthorized imagery or video

0:19:54.800 --> 0:19:57.240
<v Speaker 2>must not be published on any media and must be

0:19:57.280 --> 0:20:00.960
<v Speaker 2>immediately removed from the public domain upon request from hotel management.

0:20:01.240 --> 0:20:03.840
<v Speaker 2>Hotel rooms are to be used solely for guest accommodation

0:20:03.920 --> 0:20:06.399
<v Speaker 2>and enjoyment. Hotel rooms are not to be used as

0:20:06.480 --> 0:20:10.760
<v Speaker 2>locations for commercial activity, including pop up shows, trunk shows, etc.

0:20:11.520 --> 0:20:14.080
<v Speaker 2>I take it from these terms and conditions that they

0:20:14.119 --> 0:20:16.879
<v Speaker 2>have been royally screwed over by some influencers in the

0:20:16.920 --> 0:20:19.679
<v Speaker 2>past who have taken advantage of the rooms.

0:20:19.840 --> 0:20:20.480
<v Speaker 1>You might be right.

0:20:20.560 --> 0:20:22.640
<v Speaker 2>So it also might be a case of that they've

0:20:22.680 --> 0:20:25.639
<v Speaker 2>seen so many influencers come in and use the hotel

0:20:25.680 --> 0:20:27.520
<v Speaker 2>as a backdrop and make a lot of money from

0:20:27.600 --> 0:20:29.840
<v Speaker 2>it that they're now trying to control how the money

0:20:29.880 --> 0:20:32.560
<v Speaker 2>is made and sort of take their own cut. Yeahtual,

0:20:32.560 --> 0:20:34.560
<v Speaker 2>I mean the thing is I get that obviously they

0:20:34.560 --> 0:20:38.080
<v Speaker 2>would like to be paid a location fee. However, in

0:20:38.119 --> 0:20:41.000
<v Speaker 2>the case of this influencer brit who spoke to us,

0:20:41.320 --> 0:20:44.160
<v Speaker 2>she has a micro following, she has ten thousand followers,

0:20:44.400 --> 0:20:47.280
<v Speaker 2>and the photos that she was putting up, she wasn't

0:20:47.320 --> 0:20:52.080
<v Speaker 2>actually paid for the clothing. She was gifted the clothing. However,

0:20:52.480 --> 0:20:54.920
<v Speaker 2>as a micro influencer, you've got to start out somewhere,

0:20:54.960 --> 0:20:58.000
<v Speaker 2>so she was trying to take photos that other bigger

0:20:58.040 --> 0:21:01.000
<v Speaker 2>influences would take of clothing and tap the clothing in it.

0:21:01.119 --> 0:21:03.119
<v Speaker 2>I feel like, where do you draw on the line

0:21:03.160 --> 0:21:05.880
<v Speaker 2>in terms of what the commercial gain is. So if

0:21:05.920 --> 0:21:07.879
<v Speaker 2>I'm be gifted a share I can't take a photo

0:21:07.920 --> 0:21:10.000
<v Speaker 2>in the hotel room. Well, they classify in their terms

0:21:10.000 --> 0:21:13.000
<v Speaker 2>and conditions that it's also stuff that's of a promotional nature,

0:21:13.040 --> 0:21:17.000
<v Speaker 2>so I'm assuming that they count gifted items involved in that.

0:21:17.359 --> 0:21:19.520
<v Speaker 2>I personally don't agree with that. I think that if

0:21:19.520 --> 0:21:22.560
<v Speaker 2>you have been gifted something, or you're a fashion blogger

0:21:22.600 --> 0:21:25.080
<v Speaker 2>trying to create your feed, you should be allowed to

0:21:25.080 --> 0:21:27.080
<v Speaker 2>just post up a photo of yourself at the hotel

0:21:27.119 --> 0:21:28.199
<v Speaker 2>that you've paid to stay out.

0:21:28.440 --> 0:21:28.680
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:21:28.680 --> 0:21:30.960
<v Speaker 2>Well, they have said that you can post photos of

0:21:31.000 --> 0:21:34.719
<v Speaker 2>a personal nature, but as you said, not created for promotion.

0:21:34.880 --> 0:21:36.919
<v Speaker 2>So I think that this is where the line is

0:21:36.960 --> 0:21:42.200
<v Speaker 2>really blurred, because again, a micro influencer isn't necessarily gaining

0:21:42.240 --> 0:21:44.119
<v Speaker 2>a lot from posting that photo. That it's sort of

0:21:44.119 --> 0:21:47.040
<v Speaker 2>they're curating their image. And as Britt did mention, she

0:21:47.119 --> 0:21:49.240
<v Speaker 2>actually got a lot of comments from her followers being like,

0:21:49.240 --> 0:21:50.760
<v Speaker 2>oh my gosh, where did you stay? I really want

0:21:50.800 --> 0:21:53.920
<v Speaker 2>to stay there? So the feedback otion, Yeah, the feedback

0:21:54.080 --> 0:21:57.679
<v Speaker 2>was really positive. Well, the weird thing is that influencers

0:21:57.720 --> 0:22:00.280
<v Speaker 2>themselves are sometimes the product that they are pushed. If

0:22:00.320 --> 0:22:03.480
<v Speaker 2>you're a micro influencer, you're going to be taking photos

0:22:03.480 --> 0:22:05.680
<v Speaker 2>of yourself in glamorous places.

0:22:05.400 --> 0:22:07.920
<v Speaker 1>Like this hotel. So where do we draw the line?

0:22:07.960 --> 0:22:10.119
<v Speaker 2>Are you allowed to promote yourself as.

0:22:09.960 --> 0:22:11.000
<v Speaker 1>The product and the photo?

0:22:11.080 --> 0:22:13.159
<v Speaker 2>Though? Because they don't have an issue with people taking

0:22:13.160 --> 0:22:16.200
<v Speaker 2>photos of themselves there, they have an issue with people

0:22:16.320 --> 0:22:19.879
<v Speaker 2>trying to connect different brands that they're not associated with

0:22:19.960 --> 0:22:20.440
<v Speaker 2>their brand.

0:22:20.520 --> 0:22:21.399
<v Speaker 1>That's what the problem is.

0:22:21.480 --> 0:22:24.320
<v Speaker 2>The thing is the hotel said to brit that if

0:22:24.359 --> 0:22:27.720
<v Speaker 2>she untagged the image like the brands in the photo,

0:22:27.800 --> 0:22:29.760
<v Speaker 2>she could keep the photos up. So it seems that

0:22:30.160 --> 0:22:33.000
<v Speaker 2>the hotel is okay if you're a guest and you

0:22:33.040 --> 0:22:36.040
<v Speaker 2>take a photo. However, they don't want you taking photos

0:22:36.200 --> 0:22:39.119
<v Speaker 2>of particular products in the hotel and then tagging them.

0:22:39.880 --> 0:22:40.560
<v Speaker 1>I feel like it.

0:22:40.520 --> 0:22:43.640
<v Speaker 2>Could be because they do have a pop up retail

0:22:43.720 --> 0:22:46.520
<v Speaker 2>space where they do host some of the region's most

0:22:46.640 --> 0:22:48.520
<v Speaker 2>promising upcoming fashion designers.

0:22:48.560 --> 0:22:50.360
<v Speaker 1>So I feel like if you take a look.

0:22:50.160 --> 0:22:53.520
<v Speaker 2>At influencers, majority of them are promoting fast fashion brands.

0:22:53.720 --> 0:22:56.160
<v Speaker 2>So maybe because they do have this pop up retail

0:22:56.200 --> 0:22:58.880
<v Speaker 2>space that is why they need permission to be allowed

0:22:58.920 --> 0:23:01.000
<v Speaker 2>to But what is it. What do you mean pop

0:23:01.040 --> 0:23:05.119
<v Speaker 2>up retail they have in the hotel. They have an

0:23:05.160 --> 0:23:08.119
<v Speaker 2>area where people can buy clothes. I assume yeah, so

0:23:08.200 --> 0:23:10.480
<v Speaker 2>they don't want an influencer coming in and a pretty

0:23:10.520 --> 0:23:13.240
<v Speaker 2>little thing outfit and tagging, you know, pretty little thing

0:23:13.640 --> 0:23:16.600
<v Speaker 2>in their hotel because they're wanting to champion their own

0:23:16.680 --> 0:23:18.800
<v Speaker 2>brand that they've got in the hotel. It's actually pretty

0:23:18.800 --> 0:23:21.440
<v Speaker 2>interesting because the wife of one of the co owners

0:23:21.480 --> 0:23:24.879
<v Speaker 2>of the hotel, she actually has her own swimwear brand

0:23:24.920 --> 0:23:26.520
<v Speaker 2>as well. So I wonder if it is so.

0:23:26.720 --> 0:23:28.359
<v Speaker 1>Is that they don't want any competition.

0:23:28.720 --> 0:23:31.159
<v Speaker 2>I am really interested to see moving forward, how this

0:23:31.280 --> 0:23:34.959
<v Speaker 2>hotel's relationship with influencers develops, because they have had a

0:23:35.040 --> 0:23:38.760
<v Speaker 2>history of having big brand launchers at the hotel, as

0:23:38.840 --> 0:23:43.040
<v Speaker 2>well as hosting certain influences on staycations. It does seem

0:23:43.119 --> 0:23:46.520
<v Speaker 2>dangerous to kind of make enemies with micro influencers because

0:23:46.520 --> 0:23:49.000
<v Speaker 2>you really don't know when those influencers are going to

0:23:49.080 --> 0:23:52.200
<v Speaker 2>take off, and then you actually want them at taking

0:23:52.200 --> 0:23:54.640
<v Speaker 2>photos at your hotel. It's pretty funny because I feel

0:23:54.680 --> 0:23:57.520
<v Speaker 2>like in Adelaide hotels would be dying for any sort

0:23:57.520 --> 0:24:00.000
<v Speaker 2>of micro influencers to post about them, So that's why

0:24:00.080 --> 0:24:02.080
<v Speaker 2>it is all a little bit ironic. I do feel

0:24:02.080 --> 0:24:04.359
<v Speaker 2>for Britain her friends because I don't feel like they

0:24:04.359 --> 0:24:06.919
<v Speaker 2>were trying to do anything wrong. I mean, they obviously

0:24:06.960 --> 0:24:09.240
<v Speaker 2>didn't read the terms and conditions, but who does read

0:24:09.280 --> 0:24:11.560
<v Speaker 2>those things when they sign into a hotel. They probably

0:24:11.600 --> 0:24:13.840
<v Speaker 2>thought they were doing the hotel a favor by posting

0:24:13.880 --> 0:24:16.840
<v Speaker 2>about them. It's also great look for the hotel because

0:24:16.880 --> 0:24:18.359
<v Speaker 2>if I receive something like that, I.

0:24:18.359 --> 0:24:19.560
<v Speaker 1>Would be so offended.

0:24:19.920 --> 0:24:22.560
<v Speaker 2>Well, Britt did say that they were extremely lovely at

0:24:22.560 --> 0:24:24.600
<v Speaker 2>the hotel, and she kind of wanted to bring it

0:24:24.680 --> 0:24:27.159
<v Speaker 2>up more as a talking point because to me, it

0:24:27.240 --> 0:24:30.600
<v Speaker 2>is such an interesting conversation and I do wonder if

0:24:30.680 --> 0:24:33.760
<v Speaker 2>other hotels or other venues, like you know, brunch spots,

0:24:33.960 --> 0:24:37.080
<v Speaker 2>are they going to start implementing similar rules because the

0:24:37.160 --> 0:24:40.439
<v Speaker 2>social media space is just really flourishing and developing, So

0:24:40.880 --> 0:24:42.800
<v Speaker 2>it might be something that we see in the future.

0:24:42.920 --> 0:24:44.720
<v Speaker 2>And as you touched on earlier, Amy, I feel like

0:24:44.760 --> 0:24:47.760
<v Speaker 2>influencers have really become a brand themselves and they do

0:24:47.840 --> 0:24:50.399
<v Speaker 2>show what they stand for or don't stand for. So

0:24:50.560 --> 0:24:54.120
<v Speaker 2>it is interesting now that some places are saying, hey.

0:24:54.080 --> 0:24:55.720
<v Speaker 1>We don't even want to be tagged by you.

0:24:56.280 --> 0:24:58.480
<v Speaker 4>Who wants to stand there and eat cold lengsil soup.

0:24:58.680 --> 0:25:01.600
<v Speaker 4>It tastes like sick. It tastes that I'm sicking it

0:25:01.680 --> 0:25:04.080
<v Speaker 4>up after an eye out, That's what it's. Wouldn't even

0:25:04.080 --> 0:25:06.320
<v Speaker 4>give my dog that that ship mate, that's ship on

0:25:06.320 --> 0:25:06.720
<v Speaker 4>a plate.

0:25:07.240 --> 0:25:08.960
<v Speaker 2>Now, before we get into the next door, we need

0:25:09.000 --> 0:25:11.840
<v Speaker 2>to preface that we will be getting into some toilet tour.

0:25:12.640 --> 0:25:14.760
<v Speaker 2>We promise it's not as graphic as last week when

0:25:14.760 --> 0:25:18.560
<v Speaker 2>we were talking about Green Pooth. If anyone's eating their breakfast,

0:25:18.960 --> 0:25:21.320
<v Speaker 2>maybe pause and finis full.

0:25:21.400 --> 0:25:22.560
<v Speaker 1>It's honestly not that bad.

0:25:22.720 --> 0:25:32.879
<v Speaker 2>So Martha from Married at First site has shot that

0:25:33.080 --> 0:25:36.360
<v Speaker 2>was genuine. So she has shared a video of herself

0:25:36.480 --> 0:25:39.800
<v Speaker 2>yelling at her partner Michael for his bad aim when

0:25:39.800 --> 0:25:41.639
<v Speaker 2>it came to him pissing in the toilets.

0:25:41.640 --> 0:25:42.720
<v Speaker 1>Oh gosh.

0:25:42.880 --> 0:25:45.360
<v Speaker 2>I all I could think was how does he put

0:25:45.440 --> 0:25:45.840
<v Speaker 2>up with her?

0:25:45.880 --> 0:25:45.960
<v Speaker 4>Like?

0:25:46.000 --> 0:25:48.120
<v Speaker 1>Can you imagine being yelled at on the when you're

0:25:48.240 --> 0:25:49.040
<v Speaker 1>taking a piss.

0:25:49.560 --> 0:25:51.760
<v Speaker 2>It made me think, though, that that is what a

0:25:51.840 --> 0:25:54.040
<v Speaker 2>relationship is like two years a long term.

0:25:54.320 --> 0:25:55.320
<v Speaker 1>Lets let's play the click.

0:25:56.640 --> 0:25:58.560
<v Speaker 2>Can you please just sit down and piss?

0:25:58.640 --> 0:25:59.040
<v Speaker 1>Please?

0:26:00.480 --> 0:26:01.679
<v Speaker 6>Why just do it?

0:26:01.720 --> 0:26:03.000
<v Speaker 1>A lot of guys do it.

0:26:05.480 --> 0:26:11.040
<v Speaker 2>Ah, I've just jipped everything in there and it's splashing.

0:26:11.080 --> 0:26:14.800
<v Speaker 2>I can from here on the foot tower, move to

0:26:14.920 --> 0:26:19.359
<v Speaker 2>the foot tower. This actually really reminded me of my

0:26:19.440 --> 0:26:22.400
<v Speaker 2>own relationship. Like even last night, I had hopped into

0:26:22.400 --> 0:26:25.320
<v Speaker 2>bed and Brandon had the door in our on Sweet

0:26:25.320 --> 0:26:27.480
<v Speaker 2>slightly open, and you know what, you can just hear

0:26:27.560 --> 0:26:30.119
<v Speaker 2>the last little drops of we coming out, and I

0:26:30.119 --> 0:26:32.520
<v Speaker 2>was like, could you close the door? Yeah, that's bad

0:26:32.560 --> 0:26:34.080
<v Speaker 2>because it makes you unique to go. Yeah, but she's

0:26:34.119 --> 0:26:36.119
<v Speaker 2>not asking him to close the door. She's telling him

0:26:36.160 --> 0:26:37.720
<v Speaker 2>that he has to sit down to piss. I mean

0:26:37.720 --> 0:26:39.080
<v Speaker 2>that's a bit emasculating.

0:26:39.160 --> 0:26:39.720
<v Speaker 1>Did you know that.

0:26:40.000 --> 0:26:41.760
<v Speaker 2>I don't know if we've spoken about this, but some

0:26:41.800 --> 0:26:43.800
<v Speaker 2>people actually stand up to wipe their bem.

0:26:44.119 --> 0:26:45.240
<v Speaker 1>Ye, yes, we've discussed.

0:26:45.440 --> 0:26:47.920
<v Speaker 2>We've discussed, discussed. There's either people that stand up or

0:26:47.960 --> 0:26:51.320
<v Speaker 2>they you know, you know, do the normal thing reach around. Well,

0:26:51.320 --> 0:26:53.879
<v Speaker 2>before we get into any more disgusting conversation, I just

0:26:53.920 --> 0:26:56.159
<v Speaker 2>want to say that Michael did actually see the funny

0:26:56.160 --> 0:26:58.280
<v Speaker 2>side of it all, and he shared his own reel

0:26:58.320 --> 0:27:01.439
<v Speaker 2>to Instagram, which was entire how my girlfriend thinks I

0:27:01.520 --> 0:27:04.440
<v Speaker 2>take a piss And the clip showed him standing.

0:27:04.080 --> 0:27:05.240
<v Speaker 1>A meter away, so he had a.

0:27:05.200 --> 0:27:07.080
<v Speaker 2>Tape measure to make sure he was a meter away,

0:27:07.359 --> 0:27:09.760
<v Speaker 2>and then he put a blindfold on and then it

0:27:09.920 --> 0:27:11.800
<v Speaker 2>was like inferring that he was about to piss. I

0:27:11.840 --> 0:27:14.320
<v Speaker 2>find it funny that Martha would prefer him to sit

0:27:14.400 --> 0:27:16.480
<v Speaker 2>down when he pisss because she doesn't want.

0:27:16.320 --> 0:27:17.560
<v Speaker 1>To get like the floor dirty.

0:27:17.600 --> 0:27:19.280
<v Speaker 2>Like for me, if I came in and saw my

0:27:19.320 --> 0:27:21.879
<v Speaker 2>boyfriend sitting down taking a piss, I'd be like, what

0:27:22.000 --> 0:27:24.600
<v Speaker 2>the fuck? Was a very masculating, isn't it to see

0:27:24.640 --> 0:27:27.320
<v Speaker 2>a man sitting Oh? I think I don't see why

0:27:27.359 --> 0:27:28.840
<v Speaker 2>what the problem is? I mean, if they want to

0:27:28.880 --> 0:27:30.639
<v Speaker 2>sit down, but he doesn't want to sit down, he

0:27:30.920 --> 0:27:32.920
<v Speaker 2>stand up. No, But I was literally having this conversation

0:27:33.000 --> 0:27:34.960
<v Speaker 2>the other day with Dale, and I was saying, it's

0:27:34.960 --> 0:27:36.920
<v Speaker 2>actually pretty good being a girl, because this is okay,

0:27:36.960 --> 0:27:39.879
<v Speaker 2>I need to preface this. We were camping and Dale

0:27:39.960 --> 0:27:43.200
<v Speaker 2>bought me this like fold out toilet seat that's basically

0:27:43.200 --> 0:27:45.600
<v Speaker 2>a toilet seat on some legs, so I can sit

0:27:45.640 --> 0:27:46.120
<v Speaker 2>and go to the.

0:27:46.040 --> 0:27:48.879
<v Speaker 1>Toilet like a pody. I suppose, I know.

0:27:49.359 --> 0:27:50.960
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And I said to him, Oh, are you going

0:27:51.040 --> 0:27:52.320
<v Speaker 2>to use it? And he's like, I hope I don't

0:27:52.359 --> 0:27:54.200
<v Speaker 2>have to. And I said, do you know what, it's

0:27:54.200 --> 0:27:57.280
<v Speaker 2>actually quite good being a girl, having getting to sit

0:27:57.359 --> 0:27:59.679
<v Speaker 2>down because I go to the toilet a lot when

0:27:59.720 --> 0:28:02.879
<v Speaker 2>you though to stand. That was the only time I

0:28:02.880 --> 0:28:03.680
<v Speaker 2>said that it's not.

0:28:03.760 --> 0:28:05.120
<v Speaker 1>Great being a girl.

0:28:05.320 --> 0:28:07.160
<v Speaker 2>I don't know, it seems pretty easy, like you could

0:28:07.160 --> 0:28:09.680
<v Speaker 2>just walk in, like when you've done like a really

0:28:09.720 --> 0:28:11.760
<v Speaker 2>hard workout. There's nothing worse than having to go to

0:28:11.920 --> 0:28:13.720
<v Speaker 2>like I go to the toilet so many times during

0:28:13.760 --> 0:28:16.880
<v Speaker 2>the day to do wee and getting down and having

0:28:16.920 --> 0:28:19.560
<v Speaker 2>to get back up. And also you mean like when

0:28:19.640 --> 0:28:23.760
<v Speaker 2>you've done legs day or something like, yeah, on the

0:28:23.800 --> 0:28:25.720
<v Speaker 2>toilet that's hard. Could I just say though? It was

0:28:25.720 --> 0:28:28.679
<v Speaker 2>so funny in our community we put up a post

0:28:28.720 --> 0:28:31.520
<v Speaker 2>about the green Peol incident involving the rainbow cake, and

0:28:31.560 --> 0:28:35.280
<v Speaker 2>one of our lovely members of the community wrote that

0:28:35.320 --> 0:28:37.960
<v Speaker 2>they loved that we were normalizing women talking about Pooh,

0:28:38.000 --> 0:28:40.040
<v Speaker 2>and I thought that is hilarious, Like, thank you so

0:28:40.160 --> 0:28:42.120
<v Speaker 2>much to whoever wrote that kinde comment.

0:28:42.320 --> 0:28:44.959
<v Speaker 1>But we're just being but we're just being vulgar.

0:28:45.000 --> 0:28:47.040
<v Speaker 2>And they're like, I love that you're actually normalizing it.

0:28:47.440 --> 0:28:49.040
<v Speaker 1>We are kind of our they were.

0:28:49.480 --> 0:28:52.040
<v Speaker 2>I actually also had to love one of the reviews

0:28:52.120 --> 0:28:55.120
<v Speaker 2>we got sent, so they gave us a one star

0:28:55.240 --> 0:28:58.080
<v Speaker 2>and they said, toilet humor, this is truly disgusting. Who

0:28:58.120 --> 0:29:01.920
<v Speaker 2>wants to listen to toilet Talk if you disagree? I mean,

0:29:01.960 --> 0:29:04.520
<v Speaker 2>this is just me literally asking for you to leave

0:29:04.560 --> 0:29:07.560
<v Speaker 2>and ize comment, but please leave about to say this

0:29:07.600 --> 0:29:10.200
<v Speaker 2>isn't gonna become a regular segment either, like this is

0:29:10.600 --> 0:29:12.320
<v Speaker 2>that might've been someone else that was put a false

0:29:12.320 --> 0:29:13.080
<v Speaker 2>eating their cereal.

0:29:13.280 --> 0:29:15.600
<v Speaker 1>Maybe I can understand why.

0:29:16.680 --> 0:29:19.200
<v Speaker 2>Moving on to Molly May from Love Island UK, and

0:29:19.280 --> 0:29:22.800
<v Speaker 2>she recently revealed on her Instagram story that she had

0:29:22.800 --> 0:29:26.080
<v Speaker 2>her composite bonds removed from her teeth and they're basically like,

0:29:26.160 --> 0:29:28.000
<v Speaker 2>are they kind of like a poor man's veneers. Well

0:29:28.040 --> 0:29:30.240
<v Speaker 2>they're not a poor man's veneers, but they don't grind

0:29:30.320 --> 0:29:33.240
<v Speaker 2>your teeth down to actually put the veneers on. It's

0:29:33.240 --> 0:29:36.080
<v Speaker 2>sort of like they I mean, I'm not an expert

0:29:36.160 --> 0:29:39.200
<v Speaker 2>on it, but I think they kind of like, let's

0:29:39.240 --> 0:29:42.240
<v Speaker 2>get bringing our mum, who's a gender with therapist. I

0:29:42.280 --> 0:29:44.200
<v Speaker 2>think we shut this stuff on that kind of makes

0:29:44.240 --> 0:29:45.280
<v Speaker 2>your teeth look bigger.

0:29:45.400 --> 0:29:45.960
<v Speaker 1>I suppose.

0:29:46.080 --> 0:29:48.440
<v Speaker 2>Like is that it did shock me when I first

0:29:48.480 --> 0:29:50.880
<v Speaker 2>saw it, because I was like, wow, they do look different.

0:29:50.960 --> 0:29:53.080
<v Speaker 2>But I think it's just when you see anything. Because

0:29:53.080 --> 0:29:57.760
<v Speaker 2>she's also documented herself getting her lips feel it dissolved,

0:29:58.080 --> 0:29:59.760
<v Speaker 2>and at first you're like, wow, she looks different, but

0:29:59.800 --> 0:30:01.360
<v Speaker 2>then you just get used to it. It's a good

0:30:01.400 --> 0:30:04.040
<v Speaker 2>different though. I'm so excited to see girls going back

0:30:04.040 --> 0:30:06.040
<v Speaker 2>to their natural state. It kind of reminds me of

0:30:06.080 --> 0:30:09.080
<v Speaker 2>that old show Snog Marry Avoid, where they'd have someone

0:30:09.120 --> 0:30:10.880
<v Speaker 2>in there and they're like, oh, we're going to remove

0:30:10.960 --> 0:30:12.600
<v Speaker 2>all of your fakery, and then they look.

0:30:12.520 --> 0:30:13.000
<v Speaker 1>So much better.

0:30:13.040 --> 0:30:15.080
<v Speaker 2>I mean, to be fair, I think Molly may looked

0:30:15.160 --> 0:30:17.520
<v Speaker 2>really good before, but she looks even better in a

0:30:17.600 --> 0:30:18.200
<v Speaker 2>natural state.

0:30:18.280 --> 0:30:18.400
<v Speaker 6>Well.

0:30:18.400 --> 0:30:20.400
<v Speaker 2>I also love that she's got rid of her really

0:30:20.440 --> 0:30:23.560
<v Speaker 2>long hair extensions and she's got this cool sort of

0:30:23.640 --> 0:30:26.320
<v Speaker 2>lob going on. Have you noticed in the UK, though,

0:30:26.320 --> 0:30:29.040
<v Speaker 2>because I've heard that the lob has actually been created

0:30:29.080 --> 0:30:31.960
<v Speaker 2>with clipping hair extensions. But I feel like this is

0:30:32.040 --> 0:30:35.360
<v Speaker 2>something maybe our UK, any UK listeners can let us know.

0:30:36.000 --> 0:30:38.720
<v Speaker 2>A lot of YouTubers seem to sleep with those clip in.

0:30:38.760 --> 0:30:41.680
<v Speaker 1>Hair extensions in their hair. I can't add anything worse.

0:30:41.720 --> 0:30:44.080
<v Speaker 2>It actually makes me feel physically sick to my stomach

0:30:44.120 --> 0:30:46.080
<v Speaker 2>because I had days where I'd wear them for about

0:30:46.120 --> 0:30:48.440
<v Speaker 2>eight hours at a time and by the end of

0:30:48.440 --> 0:30:50.160
<v Speaker 2>the day it was like taking a bra if you know,

0:30:50.240 --> 0:30:53.440
<v Speaker 2>that feeling was unclipping your hair extension. That's why those

0:30:53.640 --> 0:30:56.400
<v Speaker 2>those halo hair extensions are so good. But you do

0:30:56.520 --> 0:30:59.080
<v Speaker 2>still after worrying them for a long time, it's the best,

0:30:59.120 --> 0:31:02.240
<v Speaker 2>like when you rip it off. I was gonna say,

0:31:02.240 --> 0:31:05.000
<v Speaker 2>I saw Anastata King's North in a vlog talking about

0:31:05.040 --> 0:31:07.240
<v Speaker 2>how she was going to leave her click in this

0:31:07.400 --> 0:31:09.960
<v Speaker 2>sentence in when she went to bed. I just yeah,

0:31:10.000 --> 0:31:12.000
<v Speaker 2>as you said, it made me feel sick. Well. Back

0:31:12.000 --> 0:31:14.400
<v Speaker 2>to Molly May and I really like the fact that

0:31:14.440 --> 0:31:17.440
<v Speaker 2>she has urged her young followers not to follow in

0:31:17.480 --> 0:31:20.760
<v Speaker 2>her footsteps in regards to cosmetic enhancements, because she said

0:31:20.800 --> 0:31:23.840
<v Speaker 2>she wished that she had waited to well so her

0:31:23.880 --> 0:31:27.160
<v Speaker 2>face would actually mature, which I think is really good advice.

0:31:27.480 --> 0:31:30.920
<v Speaker 2>I mean, obviously people are open to make their own decisions,

0:31:30.960 --> 0:31:33.200
<v Speaker 2>but it seems like a lot of her decisions were

0:31:33.240 --> 0:31:35.680
<v Speaker 2>motivated by the fact that she was appearing on Love Island,

0:31:35.720 --> 0:31:38.480
<v Speaker 2>because she actually got the composite bonds done two days

0:31:38.520 --> 0:31:40.840
<v Speaker 2>before appearing on the show, and I think a lot

0:31:40.880 --> 0:31:43.600
<v Speaker 2>of the lip filler she also got was a result

0:31:43.680 --> 0:31:45.360
<v Speaker 2>of the fact she was going to be on TV.

0:31:45.480 --> 0:31:48.000
<v Speaker 2>Do you blame her though, because Love Island is probably

0:31:48.000 --> 0:31:51.120
<v Speaker 2>the biggest show in the UK at the moment and

0:31:51.520 --> 0:31:55.080
<v Speaker 2>they are absolutely torn to shreds by viewers. Yeah, I

0:31:55.120 --> 0:31:57.320
<v Speaker 2>don't blame her, but I am glad that she has

0:31:57.440 --> 0:32:00.760
<v Speaker 2>embraced her natural self and feeling confident enough to go

0:32:00.840 --> 0:32:03.080
<v Speaker 2>back to what she was like before Love Island, because

0:32:03.160 --> 0:32:05.640
<v Speaker 2>it would be pretty scary. You know, she's amassed all

0:32:05.640 --> 0:32:07.920
<v Speaker 2>these millions of followers and so many people know her

0:32:07.960 --> 0:32:10.040
<v Speaker 2>looking a certain way, so it would be really weird,

0:32:10.560 --> 0:32:12.080
<v Speaker 2>unveiling like your natural teeth.

0:32:12.120 --> 0:32:12.360
<v Speaker 3>Again.

0:32:12.480 --> 0:32:15.600
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I found it really interesting because she spoke about

0:32:15.680 --> 0:32:19.240
<v Speaker 2>One of the main motivating factors for her transformation was

0:32:19.240 --> 0:32:21.760
<v Speaker 2>the fact that she wanted to look younger and she

0:32:22.000 --> 0:32:23.920
<v Speaker 2>is only about I think she's twenty one.

0:32:24.240 --> 0:32:25.080
<v Speaker 1>That freaks me out.

0:32:25.320 --> 0:32:28.719
<v Speaker 2>And she her and her partner Tommy, they look so

0:32:28.840 --> 0:32:31.080
<v Speaker 2>much older than twenty one. And she said that when

0:32:31.080 --> 0:32:33.760
<v Speaker 2>you're younger, you always want to look older, but then

0:32:33.800 --> 0:32:36.000
<v Speaker 2>when you get older. I mean, she's twenty one. Still,

0:32:36.000 --> 0:32:39.240
<v Speaker 2>she's still young, but you want to look younger. Yeah,

0:32:39.280 --> 0:32:42.480
<v Speaker 2>exactly right. It was really interesting because I think when

0:32:42.520 --> 0:32:45.680
<v Speaker 2>we were twenty one, we looked about fifteen, and I

0:32:45.760 --> 0:32:48.240
<v Speaker 2>know the feeling of really wanting to look younger. Now

0:32:48.720 --> 0:32:51.600
<v Speaker 2>being older or older. Now we're thirty two and being

0:32:51.640 --> 0:32:53.720
<v Speaker 2>asked if we're twenty three. In cookie, it's a real

0:32:54.520 --> 0:32:59.320
<v Speaker 2>full circle experience. You're not her sister, you're not her friend,

0:32:59.360 --> 0:33:00.520
<v Speaker 2>You're a liar, and I'm going.

0:33:00.480 --> 0:33:02.440
<v Speaker 6>To walk away from these lives because she's gonna sit

0:33:02.520 --> 0:33:03.560
<v Speaker 6>here and keep hying you.

0:33:03.560 --> 0:33:05.480
<v Speaker 2>You're the biggest poser in this town.

0:33:05.720 --> 0:33:07.600
<v Speaker 4>You know what You're going to burn stop.

0:33:07.400 --> 0:33:12.040
<v Speaker 1>It yet again.

0:33:12.120 --> 0:33:15.440
<v Speaker 2>Celeb's spellcheck has dominated our news feeds and our online

0:33:15.480 --> 0:33:19.640
<v Speaker 2>discussions this week, even though she's on a hiatus Ozzie

0:33:19.760 --> 0:33:24.240
<v Speaker 2>Influencer Opinions got everyone talking about her again. So Ruby

0:33:24.320 --> 0:33:29.480
<v Speaker 2>Tuesday Matthews, who well recall from Oystergate. She sent in

0:33:29.520 --> 0:33:32.320
<v Speaker 2>a message to Ossie Influencer Opinions and she was kind

0:33:32.320 --> 0:33:33.520
<v Speaker 2>of having a bit of a goal at her for

0:33:33.560 --> 0:33:36.160
<v Speaker 2>posting her and said, can you please not post me anymore?

0:33:36.680 --> 0:33:38.920
<v Speaker 2>And at the end of the message, she wrote, I

0:33:38.920 --> 0:33:42.479
<v Speaker 2>would seriously recommend assessing your content that you post moving forward.

0:33:42.720 --> 0:33:45.360
<v Speaker 2>I would hate for you to be in Celeb's Spellcheck's boat.

0:33:45.760 --> 0:33:48.320
<v Speaker 2>I love this little mansion here because I feel like

0:33:48.440 --> 0:33:51.040
<v Speaker 2>everyone is dying for any sort of information about what

0:33:51.120 --> 0:33:53.640
<v Speaker 2>is happening with Celeb' Spellcheck that they thought maybe this

0:33:53.720 --> 0:33:55.720
<v Speaker 2>is a little bone we've all been through. Yeah, like

0:33:55.800 --> 0:33:58.040
<v Speaker 2>maybe she is getting sued. I mean she has come

0:33:58.040 --> 0:33:59.800
<v Speaker 2>out and said no, that is not the case. She's

0:33:59.840 --> 0:34:02.760
<v Speaker 2>not being sued, But we don't know what's in the works.

0:34:02.800 --> 0:34:05.840
<v Speaker 2>There's a lot of influencers that are very angry about

0:34:05.840 --> 0:34:08.680
<v Speaker 2>what Celeb's Spellcheck's been doing, and I feel like we

0:34:08.840 --> 0:34:10.920
<v Speaker 2>kind of touched upon it last week. But there has

0:34:11.000 --> 0:34:14.000
<v Speaker 2>been a lot of discussion around the video that Celeb's

0:34:14.000 --> 0:34:17.359
<v Speaker 2>Spellcheck posted of Lorena from the Bachelor, and the more

0:34:17.400 --> 0:34:19.400
<v Speaker 2>I've thought about it and the more I've listened to

0:34:19.440 --> 0:34:21.840
<v Speaker 2>different like you know, It's life on Cut was talking

0:34:21.840 --> 0:34:24.799
<v Speaker 2>about it, which I found pretty interesting because they are

0:34:25.000 --> 0:34:28.040
<v Speaker 2>both influencers and kind of seem like everyday people, and

0:34:28.080 --> 0:34:31.320
<v Speaker 2>I found their take on it really interesting. So Britt

0:34:31.600 --> 0:34:34.280
<v Speaker 2>was really of the opinion that they crossed the line

0:34:34.360 --> 0:34:38.320
<v Speaker 2>majorly when they posted a video of Lorena allegedly snorting

0:34:38.320 --> 0:34:41.000
<v Speaker 2>what looked like a white substance, and they said across

0:34:41.040 --> 0:34:43.920
<v Speaker 2>the line because this was something that Lorena had not posted,

0:34:44.000 --> 0:34:46.799
<v Speaker 2>This was something that was sent to the page by

0:34:46.840 --> 0:34:48.920
<v Speaker 2>someone that was at the party. It was kind of

0:34:48.960 --> 0:34:51.160
<v Speaker 2>a got ya moment. Well, I just say, though, we

0:34:51.239 --> 0:34:53.520
<v Speaker 2>don't know that for sure. I mean, we're all jumping

0:34:53.560 --> 0:34:56.600
<v Speaker 2>to conclusions because initially when I saw it, I thought, Wow,

0:34:56.719 --> 0:35:00.000
<v Speaker 2>somebody's insta story that or someone sent it as a snapchat,

0:35:00.160 --> 0:35:02.960
<v Speaker 2>so we don't know if it was actually yeah, But regardless,

0:35:03.160 --> 0:35:06.840
<v Speaker 2>Lorena didn't publish it, and celeb Spellcheck's amo is usually

0:35:06.920 --> 0:35:09.960
<v Speaker 2>that she will reshare something that an influencer has posted

0:35:10.000 --> 0:35:12.680
<v Speaker 2>themselves and you know, make fun of it or bring

0:35:13.120 --> 0:35:16.000
<v Speaker 2>pull someone into account. So it was interesting to look

0:35:16.000 --> 0:35:18.880
<v Speaker 2>at it with that point of view, because I feel

0:35:18.880 --> 0:35:21.919
<v Speaker 2>like that type of content is something that could get

0:35:21.960 --> 0:35:25.040
<v Speaker 2>celebs Spellcheck in trouble. And it is interesting that that

0:35:25.200 --> 0:35:28.040
<v Speaker 2>was posted and then this hiatus has been taken. It's

0:35:28.080 --> 0:35:30.560
<v Speaker 2>such a shame because I feel like she was being

0:35:30.680 --> 0:35:34.799
<v Speaker 2>quite good at moderating the comments and keeping the content fun.

0:35:34.880 --> 0:35:37.880
<v Speaker 2>I mean, apart from the influencer encounts like those were

0:35:37.920 --> 0:35:40.200
<v Speaker 2>so much fun to look at, but I do feel

0:35:40.200 --> 0:35:42.399
<v Speaker 2>like they were verging some of them. I think it's

0:35:42.400 --> 0:35:44.520
<v Speaker 2>the drug taking reference. Isn't that there were a few

0:35:44.560 --> 0:35:47.080
<v Speaker 2>that referenced drug taking, And I think that's where if

0:35:47.120 --> 0:35:49.080
<v Speaker 2>you are listening sole Spellcheck, you've got to just not

0:35:49.160 --> 0:35:53.120
<v Speaker 2>include that stuff. But the thing is with Lorena Celeb'spelcheck

0:35:53.200 --> 0:35:57.520
<v Speaker 2>didn't actually accuse her of snorting cocaine, but that is

0:35:57.560 --> 0:36:00.160
<v Speaker 2>the inference that people have got from the video being shared.

0:36:00.320 --> 0:36:03.000
<v Speaker 2>Which is why we wanted to have John Laxon, who

0:36:03.120 --> 0:36:05.720
<v Speaker 2>is a Sydney media lawyer on for Laxon and lex

0:36:06.080 --> 0:36:08.319
<v Speaker 2>so we can pick his brain about what you can

0:36:08.400 --> 0:36:10.560
<v Speaker 2>and can't post. And a lot of influencers are chucking

0:36:10.600 --> 0:36:12.840
<v Speaker 2>around the word defamation, and I think it's really important

0:36:12.840 --> 0:36:16.560
<v Speaker 2>that we know what defamation is and whether Celeb's Spellcheck

0:36:16.600 --> 0:36:20.720
<v Speaker 2>and other pages like Ossie Influencer Opinions are actually liable. Also,

0:36:21.280 --> 0:36:23.840
<v Speaker 2>are you liable for commenting on this type of information

0:36:23.880 --> 0:36:25.960
<v Speaker 2>because we don't want to get like, no one wants

0:36:26.000 --> 0:36:27.680
<v Speaker 2>to get in trouble for this type of thing. I

0:36:27.680 --> 0:36:30.080
<v Speaker 2>also think it's interesting to talk to John about even

0:36:30.120 --> 0:36:34.040
<v Speaker 2>if something is defamatory or classified as defamation, can you

0:36:34.120 --> 0:36:37.400
<v Speaker 2>actually be taken to court over it? Because most cases

0:36:37.480 --> 0:36:40.200
<v Speaker 2>don't actually go to court. Most things get settled outside

0:36:40.200 --> 0:36:41.440
<v Speaker 2>of court. So I feel like there's a lot of

0:36:41.440 --> 0:36:43.919
<v Speaker 2>people who are scared thinking I'm going to be taken

0:36:43.960 --> 0:36:45.040
<v Speaker 2>to court for all my money.

0:36:45.280 --> 0:36:47.520
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, so let's listen to what John's got to say.

0:36:47.560 --> 0:36:48.640
<v Speaker 1>Amy's personal lawyer.

0:36:49.719 --> 0:36:53.640
<v Speaker 6>You get into Harvard Law wit like it's hard.

0:36:54.920 --> 0:36:58.880
<v Speaker 2>So firstly, John, welcome to Outspoken. We are so excited

0:36:58.920 --> 0:37:00.680
<v Speaker 2>to have you on. We've given you a bit of

0:37:00.680 --> 0:37:02.799
<v Speaker 2>a pump up in our previous episode we said you're

0:37:02.800 --> 0:37:04.359
<v Speaker 2>our favorite lawyer going around town.

0:37:06.400 --> 0:37:09.719
<v Speaker 6>Thank you, very very gracious of you.

0:37:10.280 --> 0:37:13.279
<v Speaker 2>Sophi keeps calling you my personal lawyer, and we must

0:37:13.280 --> 0:37:16.279
<v Speaker 2>say that obviously we have Well, you've represented me in

0:37:16.320 --> 0:37:19.040
<v Speaker 2>the past, but you're not my personal lawyer. Unfortunately.

0:37:19.280 --> 0:37:23.480
<v Speaker 6>Well, I'm very honored to have been your lawyer. Thank you.

0:37:24.239 --> 0:37:25.400
<v Speaker 1>So we should probably get into it.

0:37:25.400 --> 0:37:28.440
<v Speaker 2>We've got you on the show to speak about Instagram

0:37:28.480 --> 0:37:32.040
<v Speaker 2>page celeb spellcheck. So a number of influencers who have

0:37:32.120 --> 0:37:36.359
<v Speaker 2>featured on this page have accused it of being defamatory. Now,

0:37:36.400 --> 0:37:39.120
<v Speaker 2>can you firstly explain what exactly is defamation?

0:37:40.120 --> 0:37:43.680
<v Speaker 6>Well, simply, defamation is a taught and a tort is

0:37:43.680 --> 0:37:46.520
<v Speaker 6>a civil wrong. So with defamation, it's a civil wrong

0:37:46.600 --> 0:37:50.480
<v Speaker 6>that involves conduct that harms another person's reputation. So the

0:37:50.560 --> 0:37:53.920
<v Speaker 6>law recognizes that individuals have the right not to have

0:37:54.000 --> 0:37:58.840
<v Speaker 6>their reputation unjustly Sully, I can use that quaint expression,

0:37:59.120 --> 0:38:04.160
<v Speaker 6>and so law provides a mechanism to seek remedies where

0:38:04.160 --> 0:38:07.040
<v Speaker 6>that occurs through the payment of compensation. But it's not

0:38:07.080 --> 0:38:09.600
<v Speaker 6>just about whether a person feels that've been defamed or

0:38:09.600 --> 0:38:13.200
<v Speaker 6>whether the other person intended to defame them. The test

0:38:13.360 --> 0:38:17.480
<v Speaker 6>is what the ordinary and reasonable person would think. So

0:38:17.560 --> 0:38:21.319
<v Speaker 6>what defamation laws seek to do is to balance the

0:38:21.400 --> 0:38:25.160
<v Speaker 6>competing rights, the tensions between the rights of members of

0:38:25.200 --> 0:38:29.400
<v Speaker 6>the public to protect their reputation, the rights to exercise

0:38:29.800 --> 0:38:33.120
<v Speaker 6>freedom of speech and to access accurate and true information.

0:38:33.280 --> 0:38:35.800
<v Speaker 6>So the course obviously recognize the importance of freedom of speech,

0:38:36.360 --> 0:38:40.520
<v Speaker 6>although you've probably been surprised to learn that that right

0:38:40.760 --> 0:38:45.000
<v Speaker 6>isn't expressly legislated in Australian law, unlike in the US Constitution.

0:38:45.280 --> 0:38:48.160
<v Speaker 6>And then there are a variety of defenses available to

0:38:48.280 --> 0:38:51.040
<v Speaker 6>a defamation clim The most widely known one is the

0:38:51.040 --> 0:38:55.080
<v Speaker 6>defense of truth or justification as it's sometimes called. You know,

0:38:55.120 --> 0:38:58.120
<v Speaker 6>there are several others also, public interest reporting in the

0:38:58.120 --> 0:39:04.279
<v Speaker 6>public interest and efectiveness of the current defamation provisions are

0:39:04.320 --> 0:39:06.960
<v Speaker 6>currently under question. There's a debate about that. A new

0:39:07.000 --> 0:39:11.280
<v Speaker 6>South Wales has already legislated a new public interest defense

0:39:11.520 --> 0:39:13.920
<v Speaker 6>but yet to come into force. Now whether that's a

0:39:13.960 --> 0:39:15.880
<v Speaker 6>good thing or not, well, there's a debate about that

0:39:15.920 --> 0:39:18.440
<v Speaker 6>going on at the mind. That's a long way of

0:39:18.440 --> 0:39:19.680
<v Speaker 6>answering what defamation is.

0:39:19.719 --> 0:39:23.160
<v Speaker 2>In regards to this page, celeb spell check, they've been

0:39:23.200 --> 0:39:26.319
<v Speaker 2>known to share spelling errors that influencers have put up,

0:39:26.640 --> 0:39:29.280
<v Speaker 2>but the content has gone much further in recent weeks

0:39:29.360 --> 0:39:33.400
<v Speaker 2>and people have seen posts such as different influencers or

0:39:33.480 --> 0:39:37.560
<v Speaker 2>reality stars looking as if they're allegedly snorting a white substance.

0:39:37.840 --> 0:39:40.280
<v Speaker 2>If they're sharing something like that that is a video

0:39:40.400 --> 0:39:43.279
<v Speaker 2>that has been put out there or that they have received.

0:39:43.440 --> 0:39:46.279
<v Speaker 2>One would assume that, wow, we can see what's going on.

0:39:46.760 --> 0:39:49.120
<v Speaker 2>Maybe that page could use the truth defense. But is

0:39:49.160 --> 0:39:51.400
<v Speaker 2>that something that they could use or is it a

0:39:51.400 --> 0:39:53.399
<v Speaker 2>bit more difficult than just saying we've got a video

0:39:53.480 --> 0:39:55.120
<v Speaker 2>of this person doing this this act.

0:39:55.239 --> 0:39:56.880
<v Speaker 6>Well, it's a bit more difficult. I mean, it's a

0:39:56.880 --> 0:39:59.600
<v Speaker 6>fine line, and you know, it's a question on which

0:40:00.280 --> 0:40:02.799
<v Speaker 6>rigual minds can differ. I mean, it would be hard

0:40:02.800 --> 0:40:05.160
<v Speaker 6>to make the suggestion that an image that seems to

0:40:05.160 --> 0:40:08.799
<v Speaker 6>show someone snorting lines of cocaine was a harmless joke.

0:40:09.160 --> 0:40:11.319
<v Speaker 6>The person who posts the image knows is going to

0:40:11.320 --> 0:40:15.760
<v Speaker 6>be consequences, especially if the person the influencer is unaware

0:40:15.800 --> 0:40:18.319
<v Speaker 6>that they're being recorded at the time, so you know,

0:40:18.440 --> 0:40:22.400
<v Speaker 6>they're on denis And depending on the circumstances, there might

0:40:22.440 --> 0:40:26.680
<v Speaker 6>be defenses to posting that like truth. But I'll say

0:40:26.719 --> 0:40:30.520
<v Speaker 6>more on that later. But there are difficulties in establishing truth.

0:40:30.640 --> 0:40:33.960
<v Speaker 6>So whether something's harmless fun or not, it typically comes

0:40:34.000 --> 0:40:37.160
<v Speaker 6>back to the question of what the ordinary and reasonable

0:40:37.200 --> 0:40:39.320
<v Speaker 6>person would think, because that's the test under the defamation

0:40:40.239 --> 0:40:43.120
<v Speaker 6>and that depends on the context of the publication. So

0:40:43.560 --> 0:40:45.680
<v Speaker 6>you might remember it came up as an issue a

0:40:45.719 --> 0:40:50.759
<v Speaker 6>few years ago in the Chris Kenny ABC litigation where

0:40:50.760 --> 0:40:54.760
<v Speaker 6>the Chaser group they made a video depicting Chris Kenny

0:40:54.960 --> 0:40:57.600
<v Speaker 6>being intimate with the dog. The ABC argued that it

0:40:57.640 --> 0:41:00.480
<v Speaker 6>was clearly satirical no reasonable person could I think it

0:41:00.560 --> 0:41:04.840
<v Speaker 6>was suggested that what was the subject of the humorous

0:41:04.920 --> 0:41:08.200
<v Speaker 6>video was actually mister Kenny being intimate with a dog,

0:41:08.640 --> 0:41:11.799
<v Speaker 6>and there was an initial hearing with the parties in

0:41:11.800 --> 0:41:14.680
<v Speaker 6>which the court accepted that argument, but it left open

0:41:14.760 --> 0:41:17.960
<v Speaker 6>the claim that the ABC was suggesting that mister Kenny

0:41:18.000 --> 0:41:19.560
<v Speaker 6>was as bad as someone who might have sex with

0:41:19.600 --> 0:41:23.719
<v Speaker 6>the dog. Now that case it ultimately settled, so we'll

0:41:23.719 --> 0:41:25.520
<v Speaker 6>never know what a court would have found at the

0:41:25.520 --> 0:41:28.200
<v Speaker 6>ottimate hearing. Most and you know, most of these matters

0:41:28.200 --> 0:41:28.640
<v Speaker 6>do settle.

0:41:29.239 --> 0:41:31.520
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, now you touched on some of the reforms that

0:41:31.560 --> 0:41:34.640
<v Speaker 2>are happening at the moment with the defamation laws in Australia.

0:41:34.760 --> 0:41:37.000
<v Speaker 2>What is it that we can aspect from the new laws.

0:41:37.040 --> 0:41:38.879
<v Speaker 2>I know it's a bit of a slow process when

0:41:38.960 --> 0:41:40.000
<v Speaker 2>laws come into place.

0:41:40.520 --> 0:41:47.440
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, Well, to answer your last question, for I think

0:41:47.480 --> 0:41:50.120
<v Speaker 6>the law is always evolving whether it's in the form

0:41:50.160 --> 0:41:54.920
<v Speaker 6>of new legislation, proposal legislation, or because judges continue to

0:41:55.040 --> 0:41:59.040
<v Speaker 6>interpret the law and appliant to new situations like social media.

0:41:59.520 --> 0:42:04.799
<v Speaker 6>So you know, I think it's arguable whether or not

0:42:04.840 --> 0:42:07.160
<v Speaker 6>the law who's caught up with the social media age

0:42:07.440 --> 0:42:13.680
<v Speaker 6>a large well. The large media organizations often cry that

0:42:14.040 --> 0:42:17.120
<v Speaker 6>defamation law is no longer sit for purpose because obviously

0:42:17.120 --> 0:42:19.200
<v Speaker 6>they don't like paying out large sums of money when

0:42:19.239 --> 0:42:21.000
<v Speaker 6>they are on the wrong end of it. They're obviously

0:42:21.040 --> 0:42:23.560
<v Speaker 6>going to say that they're the defendant and they want

0:42:23.560 --> 0:42:26.120
<v Speaker 6>it to be as difficult as possible for people to

0:42:26.120 --> 0:42:28.360
<v Speaker 6>see them. But they will a lot of power, and

0:42:28.440 --> 0:42:31.680
<v Speaker 6>social media is obviously the mentally powerful and it can

0:42:31.719 --> 0:42:34.920
<v Speaker 6>be harmful. So untrue things that are published online obviously

0:42:34.960 --> 0:42:38.440
<v Speaker 6>have the potential to ruin people's lives, and that's why

0:42:38.440 --> 0:42:44.239
<v Speaker 6>they can sue when they are faded, and most people

0:42:44.239 --> 0:42:46.040
<v Speaker 6>would think, well, they should be able to So there

0:42:46.040 --> 0:42:48.279
<v Speaker 6>needs to be a level of responsibility on the part

0:42:48.360 --> 0:42:52.120
<v Speaker 6>of large media organizations and social media platforms. And I

0:42:52.120 --> 0:42:56.560
<v Speaker 6>can tell you from experience with trying to get an

0:42:56.560 --> 0:43:01.799
<v Speaker 6>outcome from a social media platform, doing so inevitably results

0:43:01.840 --> 0:43:05.239
<v Speaker 6>in the facebooks and the Instagrams and the Googles telling

0:43:05.239 --> 0:43:07.759
<v Speaker 6>you to talk to the hand. So the changes that

0:43:07.800 --> 0:43:11.400
<v Speaker 6>have recently been introduced by the Defamation Amendment Act, they

0:43:11.440 --> 0:43:15.000
<v Speaker 6>aren't specifically related to the social media age to my mind.

0:43:15.040 --> 0:43:19.120
<v Speaker 6>They're actually primarily more about making life easier for large

0:43:19.160 --> 0:43:22.680
<v Speaker 6>media companies to defend deformation actions. So two of the

0:43:22.760 --> 0:43:26.560
<v Speaker 6>key changes to the Defamation Act, they've introduced a threshold

0:43:26.680 --> 0:43:29.360
<v Speaker 6>question of serious harm in the new section ten A

0:43:29.760 --> 0:43:32.840
<v Speaker 6>and so serious harm is going to be an element

0:43:33.320 --> 0:43:35.680
<v Speaker 6>in a deformation case. And there's also a new public

0:43:35.719 --> 0:43:38.560
<v Speaker 6>interest defense. Both of those that have been borrowed from

0:43:38.600 --> 0:43:41.640
<v Speaker 6>the UK Deformation Act to a certain degree. But the

0:43:41.680 --> 0:43:46.680
<v Speaker 6>problem is, you know, what constitutes serious harm isn't defined.

0:43:46.880 --> 0:43:51.600
<v Speaker 6>So it's clear the objective of the Serious Harm Amendment

0:43:51.800 --> 0:43:56.960
<v Speaker 6>is to remove from the court system for the trivial,

0:43:57.719 --> 0:44:02.640
<v Speaker 6>you know, the backyard type, non mass media disputes, neighborhood

0:44:02.680 --> 0:44:06.600
<v Speaker 6>disputes involving name calling or spats on social media, where

0:44:06.600 --> 0:44:10.680
<v Speaker 6>there's limited actual effect on somebody's reputation. So the proposal,

0:44:10.760 --> 0:44:12.760
<v Speaker 6>the idea behind it is that this can be determined

0:44:12.760 --> 0:44:14.960
<v Speaker 6>early on in the proceedings, or a threshold question to

0:44:14.960 --> 0:44:17.920
<v Speaker 6>weed out trivial cases. But the problem with adding, however

0:44:18.000 --> 0:44:22.560
<v Speaker 6>well intentioned, it is, it's still conceived because firstly, those

0:44:22.600 --> 0:44:27.160
<v Speaker 6>types of trivial cases were more the exception than the rule.

0:44:27.320 --> 0:44:30.160
<v Speaker 6>I mean, it's an awfully expensive thing to do, as

0:44:30.200 --> 0:44:34.720
<v Speaker 6>anyone who's been involved in litigation knows, to commence defamation proceedings,

0:44:35.080 --> 0:44:37.480
<v Speaker 6>so most people don't do it. You just don't do

0:44:37.520 --> 0:44:42.800
<v Speaker 6>it over something that's inconsequential. You suck it up. And secondly,

0:44:43.160 --> 0:44:46.960
<v Speaker 6>the threshold question really has the potential just to delay things,

0:44:46.960 --> 0:44:51.239
<v Speaker 6>to close it up, and to increase costs by requiring

0:44:51.600 --> 0:44:55.920
<v Speaker 6>this additional preliminary hearing at the beginning of the process,

0:44:56.480 --> 0:45:00.560
<v Speaker 6>increasing costs, you know, delays for the amount of on calls

0:45:00.800 --> 0:45:04.200
<v Speaker 6>and so defendants Media company, it would be lovingness because

0:45:04.239 --> 0:45:08.600
<v Speaker 6>it's an opportunity to make a plaintiff spend some cash

0:45:09.239 --> 0:45:12.680
<v Speaker 6>on getting over the first bar the threshold question as

0:45:12.719 --> 0:45:17.120
<v Speaker 6>to whether or not the defamation constitutes serious harm. There's

0:45:17.120 --> 0:45:21.160
<v Speaker 6>also a new proposed public interest defense under Section twenty

0:45:21.280 --> 0:45:24.840
<v Speaker 6>nine A, and as the name suggests, that's intended to

0:45:24.880 --> 0:45:29.480
<v Speaker 6>make reporting in the public interests easier. Now that's not

0:45:29.600 --> 0:45:32.640
<v Speaker 6>just material. It's interesting to the public it's more going

0:45:32.680 --> 0:45:37.000
<v Speaker 6>to involve, for example, reporting which reveals corruption in public office,

0:45:37.320 --> 0:45:40.480
<v Speaker 6>things of that nature. So the amended is intended to

0:45:40.520 --> 0:45:44.360
<v Speaker 6>address an alleged gap that emerged in the current legislation,

0:45:45.600 --> 0:45:48.000
<v Speaker 6>and that being section thirty of the Defamation Act, which

0:45:48.000 --> 0:45:50.640
<v Speaker 6>has the defensive qualified privilege, And so it should make

0:45:50.680 --> 0:45:55.400
<v Speaker 6>it easier for media organizations to defend such reporting. And

0:45:55.440 --> 0:45:58.040
<v Speaker 6>it requires that the defendant established that the issue was

0:45:58.080 --> 0:46:01.920
<v Speaker 6>of public interest, and that the defendant reasonably believe that

0:46:02.000 --> 0:46:04.680
<v Speaker 6>it was in the public interest. But you see the

0:46:04.760 --> 0:46:08.040
<v Speaker 6>extent to which a matter published is of public interest

0:46:08.640 --> 0:46:12.080
<v Speaker 6>and whether it's reasonable in the circumstances. So therefore, publish

0:46:12.080 --> 0:46:15.160
<v Speaker 6>something about a person, it already comes within the existing

0:46:15.160 --> 0:46:18.800
<v Speaker 6>defense of qualified privilege in section thirty of the existing

0:46:18.800 --> 0:46:23.120
<v Speaker 6>Defamation and large media organizations, despite the fact that they're

0:46:23.120 --> 0:46:28.040
<v Speaker 6>crying now and they're agitating to change, they've actually successfully

0:46:28.120 --> 0:46:31.800
<v Speaker 6>argued section thirty defenses. So why do we need to change.

0:46:31.880 --> 0:46:33.840
<v Speaker 6>You know, I'm not Convitweeden, Why would you want to

0:46:33.920 --> 0:46:38.840
<v Speaker 6>justify greater protections for journalism that's not substantially true and

0:46:38.960 --> 0:46:42.799
<v Speaker 6>not reasonable to publish in the first place. Because of

0:46:42.800 --> 0:46:47.560
<v Speaker 6>it is then the defender will always have the defense

0:46:47.680 --> 0:46:50.640
<v Speaker 6>of truth. If a journalist does have a reasonable belief

0:46:50.640 --> 0:46:53.239
<v Speaker 6>that publishing a matter is in the public interest, then

0:46:53.800 --> 0:46:57.480
<v Speaker 6>the you and your listeners as the objective reasonable person.

0:46:58.040 --> 0:47:00.520
<v Speaker 6>They might also think that the conduct and public the

0:47:00.560 --> 0:47:04.280
<v Speaker 6>matter was reasonable, and the case will fail. And another

0:47:04.680 --> 0:47:08.480
<v Speaker 6>weakness with the proposed amendment the new section twenty nine

0:47:08.560 --> 0:47:11.600
<v Speaker 6>er is that the public interest defense can't be defeated

0:47:12.080 --> 0:47:17.840
<v Speaker 6>where the publication is malicious, whereas under the section thirty

0:47:18.280 --> 0:47:21.000
<v Speaker 6>defense that qualified privilege it can. So I see that

0:47:21.040 --> 0:47:23.319
<v Speaker 6>as a problem as well. Hope that wasn't too long

0:47:23.360 --> 0:47:23.560
<v Speaker 6>with no.

0:47:23.880 --> 0:47:27.320
<v Speaker 2>That was so interesting? Could even what you were mentioning

0:47:27.360 --> 0:47:30.160
<v Speaker 2>in terms of just how expensive it all is, because

0:47:30.160 --> 0:47:34.400
<v Speaker 2>we've seen celebrities like Rebel Wilson and Jeffrey Rush awarded

0:47:34.400 --> 0:47:37.799
<v Speaker 2>massive payouts recently after suing media outlets. Do you think

0:47:37.840 --> 0:47:40.160
<v Speaker 2>this is going to be something where we are seeing

0:47:40.320 --> 0:47:44.360
<v Speaker 2>influencers take action against online publications because they do have

0:47:44.440 --> 0:47:46.640
<v Speaker 2>the money or is it Yeah, We'll just interject because

0:47:46.840 --> 0:47:49.640
<v Speaker 2>what you were talking about before is obviously there's large

0:47:49.680 --> 0:47:52.440
<v Speaker 2>media companies with a lot of money to defend these claims.

0:47:52.480 --> 0:47:56.279
<v Speaker 2>But in this situation with this online platform celub spellcheck.

0:47:56.800 --> 0:47:59.600
<v Speaker 2>They have the lesser power here because it's just one

0:47:59.640 --> 0:48:02.680
<v Speaker 2>individu or who doesn't have much money coming up against

0:48:02.880 --> 0:48:06.600
<v Speaker 2>a number of wealthy influencers who potentially do have the money.

0:48:06.360 --> 0:48:09.160
<v Speaker 1>To take her to court. So, Yeah, as you're.

0:48:09.040 --> 0:48:11.319
<v Speaker 2>Saying, Amy, do you think John, that this is a

0:48:11.360 --> 0:48:14.560
<v Speaker 2>sign of things to come that influencers will be successfully

0:48:14.600 --> 0:48:17.000
<v Speaker 2>suing outlets or Instagram accounts like this?

0:48:17.280 --> 0:48:21.960
<v Speaker 6>Well, potentially not necessarily. What the proposed model amendments seek

0:48:22.000 --> 0:48:24.759
<v Speaker 6>to replaces the current statutory cap of four hundred and

0:48:24.800 --> 0:48:27.719
<v Speaker 6>twenty one thousand dollars, intend to replace it with the

0:48:27.719 --> 0:48:32.200
<v Speaker 6>scale of general damages so that only aggravated damages can

0:48:32.200 --> 0:48:35.560
<v Speaker 6>be awarded over the scale, and aggravated damages are a

0:48:35.600 --> 0:48:39.440
<v Speaker 6>form of additional compensation additional damages which are only awarded

0:48:39.480 --> 0:48:44.120
<v Speaker 6>where the defendant's conduct lacks bonifides whether it's otherwise improper

0:48:44.600 --> 0:48:47.000
<v Speaker 6>or unreasonable, and the plaintiff has suffered as a consequence.

0:48:47.120 --> 0:48:50.360
<v Speaker 6>But the key not to lose sight of here is

0:48:50.360 --> 0:48:53.680
<v Speaker 6>that the awards for damages in the Bower and Rebel,

0:48:53.719 --> 0:48:56.880
<v Speaker 6>Wilson case and the Rush cases, though it is substantially

0:48:56.880 --> 0:48:59.759
<v Speaker 6>because most of it with subtangible economical lots in the

0:48:59.800 --> 0:49:02.799
<v Speaker 6>form of worked that those two actors missed out on.

0:49:03.000 --> 0:49:06.200
<v Speaker 6>You know, it's no secret they're internationally famous and they

0:49:06.200 --> 0:49:08.680
<v Speaker 6>earn huge amounts of money when they get gigs on films,

0:49:08.719 --> 0:49:10.480
<v Speaker 6>So missing out on a role can mean losses and

0:49:10.480 --> 0:49:13.960
<v Speaker 6>the minions. So for me, organization or anyone who's going

0:49:13.960 --> 0:49:16.319
<v Speaker 6>to defame them obviously need to think carefully before they do.

0:49:17.480 --> 0:49:21.000
<v Speaker 6>And as a general anyway, whether it's right or not,

0:49:21.200 --> 0:49:23.120
<v Speaker 6>in most areas of law, or the more you earn

0:49:23.640 --> 0:49:26.240
<v Speaker 6>if you're wronged, the more you're going to get in damages.

0:49:26.440 --> 0:49:29.000
<v Speaker 6>So if I, either Rebel Wilson or Jeffrey Rush had

0:49:29.000 --> 0:49:31.120
<v Speaker 6>sipt over in the supermarket, for example, and had me

0:49:31.239 --> 0:49:34.200
<v Speaker 6>not at work due to the negligence on the part

0:49:34.200 --> 0:49:37.000
<v Speaker 6>of the supermarket, it had suit for damages. They would

0:49:37.000 --> 0:49:39.279
<v Speaker 6>have received substantial amounts for that as well. So the

0:49:39.640 --> 0:49:42.760
<v Speaker 6>economic loss component will always be relative to the income.

0:49:43.000 --> 0:49:45.799
<v Speaker 6>Now you might think that that's not necessarily fair, but

0:49:45.840 --> 0:49:47.960
<v Speaker 6>that's just the way the system is, and let's not

0:49:48.080 --> 0:49:52.560
<v Speaker 6>forget that. In Grebel Wilson's case, she was originally awarded

0:49:52.640 --> 0:49:55.040
<v Speaker 6>for a half million dollars that was reduced on a

0:49:55.120 --> 0:49:58.440
<v Speaker 6>peal of six hundred thousand dollars, so in the context

0:49:58.520 --> 0:50:01.399
<v Speaker 6>of what they earn in their every day life. Ordinarily

0:50:02.560 --> 0:50:06.360
<v Speaker 6>what was awarded was not necessarily disproportionate, but was actually

0:50:06.360 --> 0:50:11.240
<v Speaker 6>pretty consistent with the common law. And despite those massive awards,

0:50:11.239 --> 0:50:13.600
<v Speaker 6>it's pretty hard to feel too much sympathy for large

0:50:13.600 --> 0:50:16.799
<v Speaker 6>media organizations, which, let's face it, they would deduct their

0:50:16.800 --> 0:50:19.560
<v Speaker 6>defamation expenses as across of doing business unlike you were.

0:50:19.640 --> 0:50:23.279
<v Speaker 6>Right obviously, so, and that just reinforces that what I

0:50:23.320 --> 0:50:26.319
<v Speaker 6>said before about mitigation. It's extremely expensive. You generally have

0:50:26.360 --> 0:50:29.560
<v Speaker 6>to have very deep pockets to sue a large media organization.

0:50:30.560 --> 0:50:33.279
<v Speaker 6>So if you've got wealthy people suing for defamation and

0:50:33.400 --> 0:50:38.319
<v Speaker 6>showing that they've suffered significant economic loss, then yes, we

0:50:38.360 --> 0:50:40.880
<v Speaker 6>could continue to see large awards of damaging. So aside

0:50:40.880 --> 0:50:42.640
<v Speaker 6>from what you get for economical loss, you can also

0:50:42.719 --> 0:50:46.400
<v Speaker 6>get what's called general damages for things like her and humiliation.

0:50:47.120 --> 0:50:48.640
<v Speaker 6>But that's got a cap on it. So, as I

0:50:48.680 --> 0:50:51.800
<v Speaker 6>said before, currently it's four hundred and twenty one thousand dollars.

0:50:51.880 --> 0:50:53.719
<v Speaker 6>Under the new provision, it's going to go down to

0:50:53.719 --> 0:50:56.680
<v Speaker 6>two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Now, some might think

0:50:56.760 --> 0:50:59.560
<v Speaker 6>that that what you can be awarded in a defamation case.

0:51:00.160 --> 0:51:03.800
<v Speaker 6>Humiliation is actually well and truly with up areas of

0:51:03.840 --> 0:51:05.600
<v Speaker 6>the law now as you know, I mean, I ad

0:51:05.680 --> 0:51:08.320
<v Speaker 6>for a number of women against their former employers in

0:51:08.440 --> 0:51:12.120
<v Speaker 6>things such as sexual arrassment matters, and even in circumstances

0:51:12.160 --> 0:51:15.600
<v Speaker 6>where you know women have been subjected to serious, even

0:51:15.640 --> 0:51:18.319
<v Speaker 6>criminal offenses of the sexual nature. In a civil claim

0:51:18.400 --> 0:51:20.799
<v Speaker 6>of sexual harassment, you're doing really well. It's a court

0:51:20.800 --> 0:51:23.479
<v Speaker 6>awards you anything in the region of even one hundred

0:51:23.520 --> 0:51:27.200
<v Speaker 6>and fifty thousand. So that's an interesting question too, the

0:51:28.400 --> 0:51:31.120
<v Speaker 6>weighing up whether it's appropriate that someone can get hundreds

0:51:31.120 --> 0:51:33.360
<v Speaker 6>of thousands of dollars for being accused of being a

0:51:33.400 --> 0:51:36.560
<v Speaker 6>liar in a defamation case, whereas somebody who's subjected to

0:51:36.600 --> 0:51:41.399
<v Speaker 6>a serious sexual harassment claim which their employers liable, only

0:51:41.400 --> 0:51:43.200
<v Speaker 6>gets a fraction of that when they win. I'm not

0:51:43.239 --> 0:51:45.680
<v Speaker 6>saying one should come down, I'm saying the other should

0:51:45.719 --> 0:51:46.000
<v Speaker 6>go out.

0:51:47.200 --> 0:51:50.040
<v Speaker 2>In these cases, people are obviously having to pay people

0:51:50.160 --> 0:51:51.720
<v Speaker 2>like yourself to represent them.

0:51:51.880 --> 0:51:53.400
<v Speaker 1>Are these costs included?

0:51:53.880 --> 0:51:56.600
<v Speaker 2>Are they having to then output money to you that's

0:51:56.640 --> 0:51:59.040
<v Speaker 2>taken off what they would have got from the court.

0:51:59.360 --> 0:52:05.840
<v Speaker 6>Typically, when if you succeed, you're awarded cost that's never

0:52:05.880 --> 0:52:07.400
<v Speaker 6>one hundred percent of your cost. Well, it can be

0:52:07.440 --> 0:52:10.680
<v Speaker 6>in certain limited circumstances, but yeah, you actually have to

0:52:11.160 --> 0:52:13.160
<v Speaker 6>unless the lawyers prepared to run a matter on spec

0:52:13.800 --> 0:52:18.920
<v Speaker 6>then the client has to pay for expensive lawyers, counsel,

0:52:19.000 --> 0:52:21.600
<v Speaker 6>often senior counsel, as well as their own solicitors to

0:52:21.960 --> 0:52:23.759
<v Speaker 6>run the case and get them out of the court.

0:52:24.040 --> 0:52:26.640
<v Speaker 6>So that's enormously See do you.

0:52:26.600 --> 0:52:30.400
<v Speaker 2>Think pages like celeb, spellcheck and other anonymous accounts because

0:52:30.400 --> 0:52:33.120
<v Speaker 2>they are anonymous, does it make them harder to prosecute?

0:52:33.320 --> 0:52:36.160
<v Speaker 6>It does? I mean the very first question that you've

0:52:36.160 --> 0:52:39.560
<v Speaker 6>identified is what is the identity of the account holder?

0:52:39.680 --> 0:52:43.040
<v Speaker 6>That's working that out even a simple task, So that

0:52:43.120 --> 0:52:44.880
<v Speaker 6>of itself makes them harder to prosecute. And then you've

0:52:44.880 --> 0:52:46.640
<v Speaker 6>got to work out whether in fact you've been defined

0:52:46.680 --> 0:52:51.920
<v Speaker 6>obviously always, but then a further threshold issue is are

0:52:51.960 --> 0:52:54.040
<v Speaker 6>you suing somebody who's actually got assets? You know, the

0:52:54.080 --> 0:52:56.919
<v Speaker 6>old proverbial all you end up suing the proverbial man

0:52:56.960 --> 0:53:01.680
<v Speaker 6>of straw if I can use that quite old, you know,

0:53:01.800 --> 0:53:04.239
<v Speaker 6>And so assuming that you've identified the person, then you

0:53:04.280 --> 0:53:06.359
<v Speaker 6>need to be absolutely sure that you've been defined and

0:53:06.360 --> 0:53:09.440
<v Speaker 6>that what they've published is defamatory and untrue and not

0:53:09.480 --> 0:53:11.480
<v Speaker 6>just a pharto if you're doing something that you actually did,

0:53:11.640 --> 0:53:15.279
<v Speaker 6>because then the truth defense will arise quite clearly. So

0:53:15.640 --> 0:53:18.440
<v Speaker 6>you know, if a publisher is going to be able

0:53:18.440 --> 0:53:20.840
<v Speaker 6>to rely easily, going to be able to rely on

0:53:20.880 --> 0:53:24.000
<v Speaker 6>the truth defense, then a person would be crazy to sue.

0:53:24.000 --> 0:53:26.879
<v Speaker 6>In decimation, you only need to ask certain people form

0:53:26.920 --> 0:53:28.960
<v Speaker 6>of polish. In Craig Thompson, you might have all about

0:53:29.000 --> 0:53:32.000
<v Speaker 6>that photos are probably less likely to be sued over,

0:53:32.239 --> 0:53:36.719
<v Speaker 6>more likely to arise where anonymous allegations against individuals are published.

0:53:37.520 --> 0:53:41.400
<v Speaker 6>It's more difficult to prove an allegation than it is

0:53:41.440 --> 0:53:44.640
<v Speaker 6>to prove a photo, because a photo typically speaks for

0:53:44.640 --> 0:53:48.440
<v Speaker 6>itself unless it's adopted photo, as was the case in

0:53:48.480 --> 0:53:52.200
<v Speaker 6>the Paul En handsOn matter many years ago. And as

0:53:52.239 --> 0:53:55.600
<v Speaker 6>I said before, you know, a further issue is what

0:53:55.640 --> 0:53:57.880
<v Speaker 6>if the person operating you account has no assets? What

0:53:57.960 --> 0:54:02.759
<v Speaker 6>if it's a teenager out of their bedroom. There's no

0:54:02.840 --> 0:54:05.640
<v Speaker 6>point seeing somebody's got no assets because you're not going

0:54:05.640 --> 0:54:07.480
<v Speaker 6>to be able to get anything out of it when

0:54:07.520 --> 0:54:10.200
<v Speaker 6>you do so, unless you're a person with so much

0:54:10.239 --> 0:54:12.520
<v Speaker 6>money that you can sue for the principle of it,

0:54:12.520 --> 0:54:14.600
<v Speaker 6>and there's not many of those. It's really something that

0:54:15.239 --> 0:54:18.439
<v Speaker 6>a person contemplating suing and declamation needs to consider along

0:54:18.440 --> 0:54:19.919
<v Speaker 6>and hard before doing so.

0:54:19.920 --> 0:54:22.279
<v Speaker 2>So it sounds like these influencers don't really have much

0:54:22.280 --> 0:54:24.600
<v Speaker 2>of a case against celeb spellcheck when you put all

0:54:24.640 --> 0:54:26.400
<v Speaker 2>of those things into context like that.

0:54:26.560 --> 0:54:29.080
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, well, I mean, the platforms aren't ever going to

0:54:29.120 --> 0:54:32.000
<v Speaker 6>volunteer who's behind it, so you know, you need to

0:54:32.120 --> 0:54:36.160
<v Speaker 6>use court procedures to compel the platforms to tell you not,

0:54:36.239 --> 0:54:39.920
<v Speaker 6>such as preliminary discovery. That's only recently started happening in

0:54:39.920 --> 0:54:42.759
<v Speaker 6>the last few years, and it's really difficult. When you're

0:54:42.800 --> 0:54:46.840
<v Speaker 6>up against massive multinational platforms like Google or Facebook, they'll

0:54:46.840 --> 0:54:51.080
<v Speaker 6>typically resist any such application. So then you've got an

0:54:51.080 --> 0:54:53.879
<v Speaker 6>initial fight with a judge, and an initial expensive fight

0:54:54.680 --> 0:54:57.360
<v Speaker 6>before a judge, a really expensive fight where again you

0:54:57.440 --> 0:55:00.600
<v Speaker 6>need to lawyer up, get your solicitor and your council,

0:55:00.640 --> 0:55:02.600
<v Speaker 6>and sometimes seeing your council, and then at the end

0:55:02.640 --> 0:55:04.480
<v Speaker 6>of it it turns out to be somebody with no assets,

0:55:04.640 --> 0:55:07.160
<v Speaker 6>then there's no point going any further. But you've already

0:55:08.160 --> 0:55:10.240
<v Speaker 6>as a client, you've dropped a large amount of money

0:55:10.440 --> 0:55:13.360
<v Speaker 6>just to get just to ascertain somebody's identity.

0:55:13.560 --> 0:55:15.080
<v Speaker 2>Just lastly, I feel like this is a good question

0:55:15.120 --> 0:55:17.960
<v Speaker 2>for people listening that might be engaging with pages like this,

0:55:18.160 --> 0:55:21.280
<v Speaker 2>because often people jump on social media and they'll comment

0:55:21.480 --> 0:55:25.000
<v Speaker 2>under scandalous posts and think that maybe what they write

0:55:25.040 --> 0:55:27.360
<v Speaker 2>doesn't have any consequences. What would you say to people

0:55:27.360 --> 0:55:30.400
<v Speaker 2>who are commenting on posts put up by pages like

0:55:30.480 --> 0:55:31.240
<v Speaker 2>celeb spell.

0:55:31.120 --> 0:55:34.520
<v Speaker 6>Check, Well, it does have consequences. That's the current state

0:55:34.560 --> 0:55:38.120
<v Speaker 6>of the law. That might change because the matter I'm

0:55:38.120 --> 0:55:40.160
<v Speaker 6>talking about is currently on appeal at High Court. But

0:55:40.200 --> 0:55:43.880
<v Speaker 6>you might remember remember Dylan Voler, the ABC report about

0:55:43.920 --> 0:55:48.279
<v Speaker 6>the Northern Tertiary Youth detention centers on a four corners probe.

0:55:48.719 --> 0:55:52.000
<v Speaker 6>So there's the case of Voiler against Nationwide News. It

0:55:52.080 --> 0:55:54.400
<v Speaker 6>was in the New Southwale Supreme Court and in that

0:55:54.480 --> 0:55:59.320
<v Speaker 6>case Justice Rothman found that Nationwide News Australian news channel

0:55:59.320 --> 0:56:03.040
<v Speaker 6>on setbax me year, they could be held responsible in

0:56:03.120 --> 0:56:07.120
<v Speaker 6>defamation for comments to links that were posted on their

0:56:07.160 --> 0:56:12.120
<v Speaker 6>Facebook pages. So the pages attracted lots of defamatory comments

0:56:12.160 --> 0:56:15.120
<v Speaker 6>by people trolling mister Bollom, but that was sufficient to

0:56:15.239 --> 0:56:19.640
<v Speaker 6>establish the publication element needed to prove defamation. So by

0:56:19.680 --> 0:56:24.080
<v Speaker 6>allowing comments, by inviting people to like or to comment

0:56:24.120 --> 0:56:28.160
<v Speaker 6>on posts, the court found that each organization participated and

0:56:28.360 --> 0:56:33.000
<v Speaker 6>was instrumental in bringing about publication of defamatory matter, and

0:56:33.040 --> 0:56:35.680
<v Speaker 6>so they were liable. It didn't matter that they themselves

0:56:36.000 --> 0:56:40.680
<v Speaker 6>hadn't written the trolling comments. They were liable for having

0:56:40.680 --> 0:56:43.319
<v Speaker 6>the the sites from the first place. So I went

0:56:43.360 --> 0:56:44.680
<v Speaker 6>on appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of

0:56:44.719 --> 0:56:47.480
<v Speaker 6>Appeal agreed with the first instance judge, and that was

0:56:47.520 --> 0:56:49.759
<v Speaker 6>on the basis that the media companies knew that by

0:56:49.840 --> 0:56:53.480
<v Speaker 6>having publicly viewable Facebook pages, an outcome of having an

0:56:53.480 --> 0:56:57.319
<v Speaker 6>operating page was that any third party comment would also

0:56:57.360 --> 0:57:01.960
<v Speaker 6>be published to any Facebook user and they're responsible for it.

0:57:02.440 --> 0:57:05.040
<v Speaker 6>So once again the media organizations are screening about that.

0:57:05.440 --> 0:57:08.640
<v Speaker 6>It's on appeal to the High Court, and that appeal

0:57:08.760 --> 0:57:11.880
<v Speaker 6>hasn't been heard as yet, so once it is, that'll

0:57:12.160 --> 0:57:14.200
<v Speaker 6>sort out that issue once and for all.

0:57:14.400 --> 0:57:17.439
<v Speaker 2>We sort of touched on the changing legislation, and there's

0:57:17.440 --> 0:57:19.400
<v Speaker 2>been a lot of news around the fact that there's

0:57:19.480 --> 0:57:23.120
<v Speaker 2>new proposed online trolling laws which the government will use

0:57:23.200 --> 0:57:24.960
<v Speaker 2>to well, they've said they want to use it to

0:57:25.080 --> 0:57:27.640
<v Speaker 2>unmasked trolls. Do you think this is actually going to work,

0:57:27.680 --> 0:57:30.240
<v Speaker 2>because from what you've said, it's very hard to track

0:57:30.280 --> 0:57:33.960
<v Speaker 2>down these people, and it seems quite pointless to take

0:57:34.000 --> 0:57:36.800
<v Speaker 2>someone to court for sending a trolling comment. I mean,

0:57:36.880 --> 0:57:39.640
<v Speaker 2>is it, well, someone who doesn't have money as well. Yeah,

0:57:39.880 --> 0:57:41.360
<v Speaker 2>it just seems a bit baseless.

0:57:41.640 --> 0:57:44.200
<v Speaker 6>Well, there's a bill, it's called the Online Safety Bill.

0:57:44.240 --> 0:57:48.040
<v Speaker 6>It's currently before the Senate, and that bill establishes rules

0:57:48.080 --> 0:57:52.880
<v Speaker 6>around what constitutes cyberbullying for harassment, and it establishes an

0:57:52.880 --> 0:57:56.680
<v Speaker 6>e Safety Commissioner, and the e Safety Commissioner can issue

0:57:56.880 --> 0:58:00.840
<v Speaker 6>removal notices the social media services like Facebook, Insta and

0:58:00.920 --> 0:58:06.040
<v Speaker 6>messaging services and also users of the services like your men.

0:58:06.320 --> 0:58:11.040
<v Speaker 6>So a failure to comply with a notice by removing

0:58:11.040 --> 0:58:15.240
<v Speaker 6>offending comment could result in a fine. So that's not

0:58:15.280 --> 0:58:17.600
<v Speaker 6>the case at the moment, but that's what's proposed under

0:58:17.640 --> 0:58:21.200
<v Speaker 6>the bill. And the bill allows the Commissioner to order

0:58:21.200 --> 0:58:27.000
<v Speaker 6>internet services social media services bike Instagram to also provide

0:58:27.040 --> 0:58:31.480
<v Speaker 6>the entity, say, the identity of the end user if

0:58:31.760 --> 0:58:35.400
<v Speaker 6>that identity is relevant to the operation of the act.

0:58:35.520 --> 0:58:38.720
<v Speaker 6>So that change may very well affect the owners of

0:58:38.720 --> 0:58:41.880
<v Speaker 6>accounts like Celet's spell check. If things are posted on

0:58:41.880 --> 0:58:46.160
<v Speaker 6>their accounts which are menacing, harassing, or offensive under the

0:58:46.560 --> 0:58:50.400
<v Speaker 6>wording of a proposed bill, or that are otherwise i'most

0:58:50.440 --> 0:58:53.920
<v Speaker 6>under the act because the account owners could then potentially

0:58:53.960 --> 0:58:58.480
<v Speaker 6>be identified and find by the Safety Commissioner. And so obviously,

0:58:58.520 --> 0:59:02.840
<v Speaker 6>if that happens, that's that cats alide on what I

0:59:02.920 --> 0:59:05.840
<v Speaker 6>previously said about the difficulty of bringing a preliminary discovery

0:59:05.880 --> 0:59:07.760
<v Speaker 6>applicassion to actually find out who it is that you're

0:59:07.760 --> 0:59:11.160
<v Speaker 6>certain that might all be revealed for free by the

0:59:11.320 --> 0:59:15.120
<v Speaker 6>taking conditioner, but it's not. It hasn't passed us yet,

0:59:15.360 --> 0:59:17.880
<v Speaker 6>so let's wait and see whether it does.

0:59:18.200 --> 0:59:20.840
<v Speaker 2>Says that some of the fines for social media companies

0:59:20.880 --> 0:59:23.080
<v Speaker 2>are up to half a million dollars in the case

0:59:23.120 --> 0:59:25.320
<v Speaker 2>if they're suing, as you say, someone who might be

0:59:25.360 --> 0:59:28.000
<v Speaker 2>sitting in their home a teenager. What happens in the

0:59:28.000 --> 0:59:30.000
<v Speaker 2>case of those sort of fines, They just take them

0:59:30.000 --> 0:59:31.920
<v Speaker 2>for all their worth and then that's it. Well, they

0:59:31.960 --> 0:59:34.880
<v Speaker 2>would be asked to pay the fine. I assume they'd Okay, sorry,

0:59:34.920 --> 0:59:37.400
<v Speaker 2>I'm answering the question for you, John, but might be incorrect.

0:59:38.760 --> 0:59:41.040
<v Speaker 6>Well, I mean, yeah, I think that's right. I mean,

0:59:41.120 --> 0:59:44.080
<v Speaker 6>just because there is the potential for well, I mean

0:59:44.560 --> 0:59:50.000
<v Speaker 6>it's fine for corporations, social media companies and up to

0:59:50.280 --> 0:59:53.160
<v Speaker 6>five hundred and fifty five thous but individuals of one

0:59:53.200 --> 0:59:55.240
<v Speaker 6>hundred and eleven thousand dollars. So I mean there's the

0:59:55.280 --> 0:59:58.320
<v Speaker 6>potential for an individual who like you know, as yea,

0:59:58.440 --> 1:00:00.800
<v Speaker 6>as we all know it could be but even know efforts,

1:00:01.800 --> 1:00:03.920
<v Speaker 6>they could be fine whether they get find that amount

1:00:03.960 --> 1:00:06.920
<v Speaker 6>or whether in fact they are fined, and so whether

1:00:06.960 --> 1:00:08.800
<v Speaker 6>a fine and that amount is imposed, that'll be a

1:00:08.840 --> 1:00:14.200
<v Speaker 6>matter for the judge. And if somebody presented the court

1:00:14.200 --> 1:00:15.840
<v Speaker 6>and said, well, we just we don't have the money

1:00:16.480 --> 1:00:18.480
<v Speaker 6>and we're acting in you know, we thought we were

1:00:18.520 --> 1:00:22.040
<v Speaker 6>acting in the public interest and there was no malice,

1:00:22.120 --> 1:00:25.560
<v Speaker 6>and et cetera, et cetera. Well, who knows the same

1:00:25.640 --> 1:00:28.120
<v Speaker 6>sorts of matters that you could raise in mitigation that

1:00:28.160 --> 1:00:30.960
<v Speaker 6>you wouldn't any in any other sort of criminal manner.

1:00:31.000 --> 1:00:32.880
<v Speaker 6>For example, it's still a plant.

1:00:33.320 --> 1:00:36.280
<v Speaker 2>Thank you so much, John, You've be an absolute legend. I

1:00:36.280 --> 1:00:39.120
<v Speaker 2>think everyone is going to absolutely love this episode, So

1:00:39.200 --> 1:00:40.480
<v Speaker 2>thank you so much for joining us.

1:00:40.960 --> 1:00:43.040
<v Speaker 6>Oh, thank you, Amy and Sophie. I really enjoyed it

1:00:43.160 --> 1:00:44.479
<v Speaker 6>such fun. Hope it helped.

1:00:44.800 --> 1:00:46.880
<v Speaker 3>It is useful that.

1:00:46.840 --> 1:00:49.240
<v Speaker 2>Was so interesting and I think it will be helpful

1:00:49.280 --> 1:00:51.960
<v Speaker 2>for a lot of people moving forward having this discussion.

1:00:52.320 --> 1:00:54.240
<v Speaker 2>We also wanted to say a big thank you to

1:00:54.360 --> 1:00:57.480
<v Speaker 2>John Laxon from lax and Lex Lawyers for joining us

1:00:57.520 --> 1:00:59.560
<v Speaker 2>on the show. He is an absolute legend and I've

1:00:59.600 --> 1:01:01.960
<v Speaker 2>got to say and personal experience, I would highly recommend

1:01:02.040 --> 1:01:03.920
<v Speaker 2>John to anybody out there who is looking for a

1:01:03.960 --> 1:01:10.200
<v Speaker 2>media lawyer because he does go above and beyond. This

1:01:10.320 --> 1:01:14.040
<v Speaker 2>is future Sophie here now. As of Sunday afternoon, Celebs

1:01:14.040 --> 1:01:16.920
<v Speaker 2>Spelchick is back up and running, and for the past

1:01:16.920 --> 1:01:19.440
<v Speaker 2>few days she has been teasing us on her Insta

1:01:19.600 --> 1:01:21.680
<v Speaker 2>stories with a few cryptic posts.

1:01:21.760 --> 1:01:22.000
<v Speaker 1>Now.

1:01:22.200 --> 1:01:25.000
<v Speaker 2>On Saturday, she posted a photo of Hill's Star or

1:01:25.040 --> 1:01:28.480
<v Speaker 2>Drina Partridge and captioned it or Drina crying in a

1:01:28.520 --> 1:01:32.760
<v Speaker 2>Halloween costume. She also posted a photo of Sophia Richie

1:01:32.880 --> 1:01:36.280
<v Speaker 2>with a new boyfriend that literally looks exactly like Victorian

1:01:36.360 --> 1:01:38.240
<v Speaker 2>premier Dan Andrews.

1:01:38.240 --> 1:01:39.000
<v Speaker 1>In her bio.

1:01:39.320 --> 1:01:42.480
<v Speaker 2>She also changed her emoji to a pen and pencil,

1:01:42.800 --> 1:01:45.800
<v Speaker 2>with some thinking that maybe it means she's either going

1:01:45.880 --> 1:01:48.640
<v Speaker 2>to be writing more gossip stuff or that she is

1:01:48.720 --> 1:01:51.440
<v Speaker 2>going to be having her very own column in a newspaper,

1:01:51.680 --> 1:01:55.080
<v Speaker 2>and on Sunday afternoon, she posted a photo of Hillstar

1:01:55.480 --> 1:01:58.880
<v Speaker 2>Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag and it shows Heidi holding

1:01:58.880 --> 1:02:02.400
<v Speaker 2>a book which says you can profit from a monetary crisis.

1:02:02.760 --> 1:02:05.240
<v Speaker 2>Many believe this is a cryptic way of saying she

1:02:05.280 --> 1:02:08.400
<v Speaker 2>will now be making money from the account, which personally

1:02:08.480 --> 1:02:12.800
<v Speaker 2>I'm all for. The majority of posts have now been unarchived.

1:02:13.040 --> 1:02:16.080
<v Speaker 2>The most noticeable which are missing are the photo of

1:02:16.200 --> 1:02:20.240
<v Speaker 2>ex Bachelor contestant Lorena allegedly snorting what appeared to be

1:02:20.280 --> 1:02:23.240
<v Speaker 2>a white substance, and also the post she did about

1:02:23.240 --> 1:02:26.600
<v Speaker 2>beck Judd when she allegedly dropped pajamas off at a

1:02:26.600 --> 1:02:30.040
<v Speaker 2>local charity store that she was supposed to be promoting online.

1:02:30.480 --> 1:02:32.680
<v Speaker 2>All I can say is I'm so excited to see

1:02:32.680 --> 1:02:38.880
<v Speaker 2>what comes next. Well, I think that's all we've got

1:02:38.880 --> 1:02:41.000
<v Speaker 2>time for today. We do hope you guys did enjoy

1:02:41.120 --> 1:02:43.600
<v Speaker 2>our different episode. You have to let us know if

1:02:43.640 --> 1:02:46.240
<v Speaker 2>you enjoyed having some small interviews.

1:02:45.840 --> 1:02:46.400
<v Speaker 1>In there today.

1:02:46.480 --> 1:02:47.920
<v Speaker 2>I feel like we should all be a little bit

1:02:47.960 --> 1:02:51.000
<v Speaker 2>smarter from today's episode as well going into our mondays.

1:02:51.040 --> 1:02:52.480
<v Speaker 1>I do feel smarter, And.

1:02:52.440 --> 1:02:54.600
<v Speaker 2>If you do have time, we'd love if you could

1:02:54.680 --> 1:02:56.720
<v Speaker 2>leave us a five star review because this does take

1:02:56.800 --> 1:02:57.200
<v Speaker 2>up quite a.

1:02:57.240 --> 1:02:57.840
<v Speaker 1>Bit of our time.

1:02:57.960 --> 1:02:59.880
<v Speaker 2>And make sure you tell your friends about the podcast

1:03:00.000 --> 1:03:03.320
<v Speaker 2>because it's actually really interesting. Because when people join our community,

1:03:03.360 --> 1:03:05.680
<v Speaker 2>we get them to tell us how they've heard about

1:03:05.680 --> 1:03:08.240
<v Speaker 2>the podcast, and we had an excellent one this week.

1:03:08.520 --> 1:03:11.560
<v Speaker 2>Someone said that our cousin is dating their cousin and

1:03:11.600 --> 1:03:13.840
<v Speaker 2>I really enjoyed that connection.

1:03:13.920 --> 1:03:15.280
<v Speaker 1>That's how small Adelaide is.

1:03:15.800 --> 1:03:18.280
<v Speaker 2>Could you also share about it on your Instagram stories?

1:03:18.320 --> 1:03:20.120
<v Speaker 2>I mean, maybe we should be spreading the.

1:03:20.040 --> 1:03:24.160
<v Speaker 1>Word of what defamation actually is. You sound so desperate

1:03:24.200 --> 1:03:35.320
<v Speaker 1>in the book. I am being desperate. Please share it