An Australian publisher has shelved plans to release a book detailing alleged Chinese interference in the country over fears of legal attacks by Beijing, the author said Monday.

Academic Clive Hamilton said his book &quot;Silent Invasion&quot; was pulled by publisher Allen &amp; Unwin last week just as it was about to go to press.

He told AFP that Allen &amp; Unwin had cited &quot;serious...threats&quot; of possible legal action from Beijing should the company release the work.

The book, which was to be his ninth with the publishing house, included the names of individuals and organisations trying to influence Australian society and politics in China&#39;s interests, Hamilton said.

He described it as &quot;very factual, very deeply researched&quot;.

In an email exchange with Allen &amp; Unwin which Hamilton shared with AFP, the publisher said there was a &quot;very high chance&quot; the company could be sued for defamation if the book was published.

&quot;If pursued with malice, this kind of vexatious legal action... could result in the book being withdrawn from sale, and both you and Allen &amp; Unwin being tied up in expensive legal action for months on end or longer,&quot; it said.

Hamilton, a prominent author and professor of ethics and Charles Sturt University, called the decision &quot;a watershed moment in Australia, when Beijing can suppress free speech&quot;.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said Monday that he was not aware of the situation involving the pulled publication.

&quot;China has been developing exchanges and cooperation in various areas with Australia based on mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit,&quot; spokesman Geng Shuang said during a regular press briefing.

&quot;We hope relevant parties can put this in perspective and do more things that are conducive to the sound and steady development of China-Australia relations.&quot;

The incident came amid heightened anxieties in Australia over the extent of Beijing&#39;s soft power.

Canberra in June ordered an inquiry into espionage laws and foreign government activities following a media investigation into large political donations by two Chinese billionaires with reported links to China&#39;s Communist Party.

The probe, by the ABC and Fairfax Media, said intelligence agencies had major concerns that Beijing was interfering in Australian institutions and using the political donations system to gain access.

Last month Foreign Minister Julie Bishop warned Chinese students in Australia they should abide by the nation&#39;s values of &quot;openness and upholding freedom of speech&quot;.

Hamilton said Allen &amp; Unwin had suggested delaying his book&#39;s publication until court cases brought by Beijing against other Australian media were settled.

But he rejected letting his manuscript &quot;sit on a shelf gathering dust for a year or more&quot; and insisted he would find another publisher for the work.

Other Western publishers have reported being pressured by Chinese authorities over content inside China.

In August, another foreign publisher, Britain&#39;s Cambridge University Press, temporarily removed 300 academic articles covering sensitive Chinese political issues from a journal&#39;s website in China at the request of an import agency, only to revive the texts in response to public outcry.

That same month, US-based Association for Asian Studies said it had received a similar request from China&#39;s publications administration, but it did not comply.

In a statement to several media outlets, global publisher Springer Nature said this month that it has blocked access within mainland China to &quot;a small percentage of our content (less than one percent) in compliance with local distribution laws&quot;.

The censored articles, covering topics such as Tibet and the Tiananmen Square protests, are still viewable outside mainland China.

An Australian publisher has shelved plans to release a book detailing alleged Chinese interference in the country over fears of legal attacks by Beijing, the author said Monday.

An Australian publisher has shelved plans to release a book detailing alleged Chinese interference in the country over fears of legal attacks by Beijing, the author said Monday. Academic Clive Hamilton said his book "Silent Invasion" was pulled by publisher Allen & Unwin last week just as it was about to go to press. He told AFP that Allen & Unwin had cited "serious...threats" of possible legal action from Beijing should the company release the work. The book, which was to be his ninth with the publishing house, included the names of individuals and organisations trying to influence Australian society and politics in China's interests, Hamilton said. He described it as "very factual, very deeply researched". In an email exchange with Allen & Unwin which Hamilton shared with AFP, the publisher said there was a "very high chance" the company could be sued for defamation if the book was published. "If pursued with malice, this kind of vexatious legal action... could result in the book being withdrawn from sale, and both you and Allen & Unwin being tied up in expensive legal action for months on end or longer," it said. Hamilton, a prominent author and professor of ethics and Charles Sturt University, called the decision "a watershed moment in Australia, when Beijing can suppress free speech". A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said Monday that he was not aware of the situation involving the pulled publication. "China has been developing exchanges and cooperation in various areas with Australia based on mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit," spokesman Geng Shuang said during a regular press briefing. "We hope relevant parties can put this in perspective and do more things that are conducive to the sound and steady development of China-Australia relations." The incident came amid heightened anxieties in Australia over the extent of Beijing's soft power. Canberra in June ordered an inquiry into espionage laws and foreign government activities following a media investigation into large political donations by two Chinese billionaires with reported links to China's Communist Party. The probe, by the ABC and Fairfax Media, said intelligence agencies had major concerns that Beijing was interfering in Australian institutions and using the political donations system to gain access. Last month Foreign Minister Julie Bishop warned Chinese students in Australia they should abide by the nation's values of "openness and upholding freedom of speech". Hamilton said Allen & Unwin had suggested delaying his book's publication until court cases brought by Beijing against other Australian media were settled. But he rejected letting his manuscript "sit on a shelf gathering dust for a year or more" and insisted he would find another publisher for the work. Other Western publishers have reported being pressured by Chinese authorities over content inside China. In August, another foreign publisher, Britain's Cambridge University Press, temporarily removed 300 academic articles covering sensitive Chinese political issues from a journal's website in China at the request of an import agency, only to revive the texts in response to public outcry. That same month, US-based Association for Asian Studies said it had received a similar request from China's publications administration, but it did not comply. In a statement to several media outlets, global publisher Springer Nature said this month that it has blocked access within mainland China to "a small percentage of our content (less than one percent) in compliance with local distribution laws". The censored articles, covering topics such as Tibet and the Tiananmen Square protests, are still viewable outside mainland China.

Australian academic's book pulled over China backlash fears

Australian comedian Rebel Wilson won A$4.6 million ($3.7 million) in damages. This was after a global magazine publisher defamed her in a string of articles which resulted in the comedian losing out on Hollywood movie roles.

The Supreme Court of Victoria instructed Bauer Media, the Europe-based parent company of the magazine, to pay Wilson, A$650,000 in general damages, including aggravated damages, plus A$3,917,472 in special damages, the highest ever for a libel case in Australia.

The Sydney born Wilson is best known for her roles in the Pitch Perfect films.

&quot;The damage suffered by Miss Wilson warrants a substantial damages award to vindicate her and nail the lie,&quot; Justice John Dixon said, reading out a summary of his judgement.

He added that aggravated penalties were prevalent due to Bauer Media&#39;s &quot;unprecedented&quot; global reach and its decision to run a series of articles which claimed Wilson had lied about her age, real name and few childhood events, even though the media house had the knowledge that the allegations were false.

&quot;The allegations were based on information from a source who required payment and anonymity and whom the editor considered had an axe to grind,&quot; Dixon said.

The Justice also said Bauer Media had &quot;kept the story alive for days&quot; for its own gains, knowing the claims in the Woman&#39;s Day magazine would be picked up by other entertainment media houses worldwide. The entire episode led to Wilson missing out on a number of film roles.

The compensation was based on the judge&#39;s assessment that the celebrity lost out on at least three lead or co-lead roles, each worth at least A$6.2 million ($5 million), ascribing 20 per cent of the lost earnings to Bauer Media&#39;s articles.

Wilson expressed her gratefulness on social media as she received the judgement in the middle of the night in Britain.

&quot;Today was the end of a long and hard court battle against Bauer Media who viciously tried to take me down with a series of false articles,&quot; she said.

&quot;To me though, this case wasn&#39;t about the money,&quot; she said. adding she plans to give away the money to help some Australian charities and the Australian film industry.

Bauer Media said in a statement on its website it was considering the judgement.

The previous record for damages in a defamation case in Australia was A$2.3 million, two legal experts said.

&quot;Most observers of the case are surprised at the quantum of the judgement, and I would expect that it would be appealed,&quot; said Peter Bartlett, a partner at law firm Minter Ellison.

Wilson expressed her gratefulness on social media as she received the judgment in the middle of the night in Britain

Australian comedian Rebel Wilson won A$4.6 million ($3.7 million) in damages. This was after a global magazine publisher defamed her in a string of articles which resulted in the comedian losing out on Hollywood movie roles. The Supreme Court of Victoria instructed Bauer Media, the Europe-based parent company of the magazine, to pay Wilson, A$650,000 in general damages, including aggravated damages, plus A$3,917,472 in special damages, the highest ever for a libel case in Australia. The Sydney born Wilson is best known for her roles in the Pitch Perfect films. "The damage suffered by Miss Wilson warrants a substantial damages award to vindicate her and nail the lie," Justice John Dixon said, reading out a summary of his judgement. He added that aggravated penalties were prevalent due to Bauer Media's "unprecedented" global reach and its decision to run a series of articles which claimed Wilson had lied about her age, real name and few childhood events, even though the media house had the knowledge that the allegations were false. "The allegations were based on information from a source who required payment and anonymity and whom the editor considered had an axe to grind," Dixon said. The Justice also said Bauer Media had "kept the story alive for days" for its own gains, knowing the claims in the Woman's Day magazine would be picked up by other entertainment media houses worldwide. The entire episode led to Wilson missing out on a number of film roles. The compensation was based on the judge's assessment that the celebrity lost out on at least three lead or co-lead roles, each worth at least A$6.2 million ($5 million), ascribing 20 per cent of the lost earnings to Bauer Media's articles. Wilson expressed her gratefulness on social media as she received the judgement in the middle of the night in Britain. "Today was the end of a long and hard court battle against Bauer Media who viciously tried to take me down with a series of false articles," she said. "To me though, this case wasn't about the money," she said. adding she plans to give away the money to help some Australian charities and the Australian film industry. Bauer Media said in a statement on its website it was considering the judgement. The previous record for damages in a defamation case in Australia was A$2.3 million, two legal experts said. "Most observers of the case are surprised at the quantum of the judgement, and I would expect that it would be appealed," said Peter Bartlett, a partner at law firm Minter Ellison.

Australian comedian Rebel Wilson wins $3.7 million as compensation for damages due to defamation

A Thai man was jailed for 35 years on Friday for Facebook posts deemed insulting to the royal family, a watchdog said, in one of the harshest sentences handed down for a crime that insulates Thailand&#39;s ultra-rich monarchy from criticism.

A Bangkok military court convicted the 34-year-old of ten counts of lese majeste for posting photos and videos of the royal family on a Facebook account that purported to belong to a different user.

Wichai, whose last name was withheld to protect his relatives from ostracisation, was accused of using the account to slander a former friend, said iLaw, a group that tracks royal defamation cases.

&quot;The court punished him with seven years per count. Altogether he was given 70 years, but it was reduced in half because he confessed,&quot; said Yingcheep Atchanont from iLaw.&nbsp;

Lese majeste cases are routinely shrouded in secrecy, with media forced to heavily self-censor the details to avoid violating the broadly interpreted law.

Reporters were barred from entering the military court where Wichai&#39;s verdict was read.

Later on Friday, a criminal court sentenced another lese majeste suspect to 2.5 years in jail for uploading an audio clip from an underground political radio show that was deemed insulting to the monarchy.

Use of the draconian law has surged under a royalist junta that grabbed power in 2014, with more than 100 people charged since the coup.&nbsp;Prosecutions have continued under Thailand&#39;s new king Maha Vajiralongkorn, who took the throne in late 2016 after the death of his deeply revered father.&nbsp;

Observers have been closely watching how the new king approaches the controversial law, which effectively blocks scrutiny of Thailand&#39;s opaque and powerful monarchy.&nbsp;

According to iLaw, Wichai initially denied the charges but later confessed after waiting for more than a year in jail for the court proceedings to begin.&nbsp;

Lese majeste suspects are rarely acquitted or granted bail.&nbsp;The United Nations&#39; rights body has warned that Thailand&#39;s widespread use of the law &#39;may constitute crimes against humanity&#39;.

(AFP)

Wichai was punished with one of the harshest sentences - 35 year jail time - for posting photos and videos of the royal family on Facebook

A Thai man was jailed for 35 years on Friday for Facebook posts deemed insulting to the royal family, a watchdog said, in one of the harshest sentences handed down for a crime that insulates Thailand's ultra-rich monarchy from criticism. A Bangkok military court convicted the 34-year-old of ten counts of lese majeste for posting photos and videos of the royal family on a Facebook account that purported to belong to a different user. Wichai, whose last name was withheld to protect his relatives from ostracisation, was accused of using the account to slander a former friend, said iLaw, a group that tracks royal defamation cases. "The court punished him with seven years per count. Altogether he was given 70 years, but it was reduced in half because he confessed," said Yingcheep Atchanont from iLaw. Lese majeste cases are routinely shrouded in secrecy, with media forced to heavily self-censor the details to avoid violating the broadly interpreted law. Reporters were barred from entering the military court where Wichai's verdict was read. Later on Friday, a criminal court sentenced another lese majeste suspect to 2.5 years in jail for uploading an audio clip from an underground political radio show that was deemed insulting to the monarchy. Use of the draconian law has surged under a royalist junta that grabbed power in 2014, with more than 100 people charged since the coup. Prosecutions have continued under Thailand's new king Maha Vajiralongkorn, who took the throne in late 2016 after the death of his deeply revered father. Observers have been closely watching how the new king approaches the controversial law, which effectively blocks scrutiny of Thailand's opaque and powerful monarchy. According to iLaw, Wichai initially denied the charges but later confessed after waiting for more than a year in jail for the court proceedings to begin. Lese majeste suspects are rarely acquitted or granted bail. The United Nations' rights body has warned that Thailand's widespread use of the law 'may constitute crimes against humanity'. (AFP)

Thai man jailed for defaming royals on Facebook

Western nations warned Monday that a new defamation bill could severely undermine freedom of speech in the Maldives, as they accused President Abdulla Yameen of eroding democracy on the honeymoon islands. 
 
The United States led calls on Yameen to withdraw the bill that is being discussed in parliament this week, saying it gave authorities powers to impose severe penalties on people seeking to exercise basic human rights. &quot;The defamation bill that has been introduced in the Maldivian parliament risks being, if passed, a serious setback for freedom of speech in the Maldives,&quot; the US embassy said in a statement. 
 
&quot;It will allow severe penalties to be imposed on those who wish to exercise their democratic rights and freedoms, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.&quot; 
 
The strongly-worded missive was supported by the Sri Lanka-based diplomatic missions of Britain, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands and the European Union, which have responsibility for the Maldives. The statement also expressed &quot;concern about the erosion of fundamental freedoms and the institutions of democracy, including freedom of assembly and press&quot; under Yameen, who came to power in 2013. 
 
&quot;We urge President Yameen to reverse the backsliding of the past many months and return to the path of democracy, transparency, and rule of law -&ndash; for the well-being and prosperity of all of the people in the Maldives,&quot; it added. 
 
Maldivian police arrested 16 journalists in April for protesting against the bill, which seeks to criminalise defamation and proposes heavy fines and jail terms for offenders. 
 
Independent media institutions fear it could be used to stifle freedom of speech on the islands, whose pristine seas and white sandy beaches are a popular draw for wealthy Western tourists. The Indian Ocean archipelago adopted multiparty democracy in 2008 after decades of autocratic rule. 
 
But it has been gripped by turmoil since its first democratically-elected leader Mohamed Nasheed was toppled in 2012. Nasheed, whose jailing last year on terror charges has been widely criticised by the West, has since secured political asylum in Britain after travelling there for medical treatment while on prison leave. 
 
(AFP)

It will allow severe penalties to be imposed on those who wish to exercise their democratic rights and freedoms: US embassy

Western nations warned Monday that a new defamation bill could severely undermine freedom of speech in the Maldives, as they accused President Abdulla Yameen of eroding democracy on the honeymoon islands. The United States led calls on Yameen to withdraw the bill that is being discussed in parliament this week, saying it gave authorities powers to impose severe penalties on people seeking to exercise basic human rights. "The defamation bill that has been introduced in the Maldivian parliament risks being, if passed, a serious setback for freedom of speech in the Maldives," the US embassy said in a statement. "It will allow severe penalties to be imposed on those who wish to exercise their democratic rights and freedoms, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." The strongly-worded missive was supported by the Sri Lanka-based diplomatic missions of Britain, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands and the European Union, which have responsibility for the Maldives. The statement also expressed "concern about the erosion of fundamental freedoms and the institutions of democracy, including freedom of assembly and press" under Yameen, who came to power in 2013. "We urge President Yameen to reverse the backsliding of the past many months and return to the path of democracy, transparency, and rule of law -– for the well-being and prosperity of all of the people in the Maldives," it added. Maldivian police arrested 16 journalists in April for protesting against the bill, which seeks to criminalise defamation and proposes heavy fines and jail terms for offenders. Independent media institutions fear it could be used to stifle freedom of speech on the islands, whose pristine seas and white sandy beaches are a popular draw for wealthy Western tourists. The Indian Ocean archipelago adopted multiparty democracy in 2008 after decades of autocratic rule. But it has been gripped by turmoil since its first democratically-elected leader Mohamed Nasheed was toppled in 2012. Nasheed, whose jailing last year on terror charges has been widely criticised by the West, has since secured political asylum in Britain after travelling there for medical treatment while on prison leave. (AFP)

Proposed Maldives defamation bill threatens freedom of speech, critics warn

US actor John Malkovich took French daily Le Monde and two of its journalists to court on Friday for defamation over a report alleging that he held a secret Swiss bank account. 
 
Dangerous Liaisons star Malkovich is suing the paper over two articles published in February about the tax evasion scheme run by British banking giant HSBC out of its Swiss affiliate. 
 
Malkovich, 62, was among several celebrities listed by Le Monde among the &quot;elite tax evaders&quot; to have had a secret Swiss account between 2005 and 2007 - a claim Malkovich has rejected. 
 
&quot;Not only did John Malkovich not defraud tax authorities&quot;, he &quot;never had an account with HSBC&quot;, Julia Minkowski, one of his lawyers, told a Paris court. 
 
The only Swiss account he ever had was a securities portfolio with a bank that was later bought by HSBC, Minkowski added. 
 
The actor had declared that account to US tax authorities before closing it on November 30, 1999, a month before the creation of HSBC&#39;s Swiss private banking arm, she said. 
 
Herve Temime, another of the actor&#39;s lawyers, said Le Monde&#39;s linking of the actor to the Swissleaks revelations was &quot;shameful&quot;, calling his client a &quot;man of great integrity&quot;. 
 
Prosecutor Annabelle Philippe rapped the two journalists who authored the report, and who were absent from the proceedings, for not having the &quot;decency to come and recognise the lack of professionalism of their investigation&quot;. 
 
Le Monde&#39;s lawyer Christophe Bigot, for his part, accused Malkovich of &quot;creating a fuss&quot; despite having had an account &quot;in a discreet little bank in a country (that was) uncooperative&quot; with other countries on tax matters. 
 
The court will rule on the case in October. 
 
(AFP)

The Hollywood actor took two journalists to court for alleging he held a secret Swiss bank account

US actor John Malkovich took French daily Le Monde and two of its journalists to court on Friday for defamation over a report alleging that he held a secret Swiss bank account. Dangerous Liaisons star Malkovich is suing the paper over two articles published in February about the tax evasion scheme run by British banking giant HSBC out of its Swiss affiliate. Malkovich, 62, was among several celebrities listed by Le Monde among the "elite tax evaders" to have had a secret Swiss account between 2005 and 2007 - a claim Malkovich has rejected. "Not only did John Malkovich not defraud tax authorities", he "never had an account with HSBC", Julia Minkowski, one of his lawyers, told a Paris court. The only Swiss account he ever had was a securities portfolio with a bank that was later bought by HSBC, Minkowski added. The actor had declared that account to US tax authorities before closing it on November 30, 1999, a month before the creation of HSBC's Swiss private banking arm, she said. Herve Temime, another of the actor's lawyers, said Le Monde's linking of the actor to the Swissleaks revelations was "shameful", calling his client a "man of great integrity". Prosecutor Annabelle Philippe rapped the two journalists who authored the report, and who were absent from the proceedings, for not having the "decency to come and recognise the lack of professionalism of their investigation". Le Monde's lawyer Christophe Bigot, for his part, accused Malkovich of "creating a fuss" despite having had an account "in a discreet little bank in a country (that was) uncooperative" with other countries on tax matters. The court will rule on the case in October. (AFP)

John Malkovich a 'man of integrity', French court told lawyer in defamation case

defamation

Defamation, News on Defamation, stories on Defamation, articles on Defamation, Defamation stories at Wion, Defamation news, Defamation latest news