Australia has been called one of the "defamation capitals of the world" due to its laws, but amendments to those laws could soon be tested for the first time.
A showdown between Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch and Crikey has been brewing for weeks, spilling into the public domain when the news website published legal correspondence.
In his case filed in the Federal Court, Mr Murdoch alleges he was defamed by a Crikey analysis article, published in June, about hearings into the deadly January insurrection on the Capitol by Donald Trump supporters.
It referred to the Murdochs and Fox News commentators as "unindicted co-conspirators", which Mr Murdoch denies.
But Mr Murdoch's statement of claim reveals multiple specific imputations, or meanings, which he argues were conveyed by the article and defamed him.
Amendments to Australian defamation law came into effect in most states and territories in July last year, with the exception of Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
One change was the requirement of a plaintiff to establish that a publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation.
President of the Australian Bar Association, Matt Collins QC, said that was designed to "filter out" more trivial defamation actions.
Mr Murdoch's court documents specifically argue the article caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to his reputation by reason of several matters, including the allegations of criminality and "sensational language".
The changes also created a new defence where material involves investigative or public interest journalism, potentially applicable where publishers reasonably believe their material was in the public interest.
"The new defence is intended to liberalise defamation law to the advantage of publishers," Dr Collins said.
"I expect any serious defamation case that arises from now on, which involves investigative journalism or public interest journalism, publishers will be looking at the potential application of that defence."
The barrister said the Murdoch case is likely to be the first major test for the new laws, which only apply to things that were first published or broadcast after July 2021.
Crikey has not yet filed a defence in the case, nor revealed what potential defences it may seek to rely on.
However, it is standing by the article, which was reposted after initially being removed following a legal letter.
"Whilst we are very confident of our legal case, we think the imputations that have been argued are absurd, and would not hold in a court of law," said Will Hayward, CEO of Private Media, which owns Crikey.
The cost for publishers who lose defamation cases can be extremely high, and the Murdoch case is no exception.
Mr Hayward said their advice warns a worst-case scenario could leave the company with a $3 million financial hit, something he described as a "significant burden".
But he argued the case is not only a legal battle, but one of public opinion, and said they were willing to push the issue in the hope it's "a win for free speech".
Australia's defamation laws have meant media outlets sometimes take on extremely high levels of risk, depending on the person or people being reported on and the topic of the material.
This rings particularly true for publishers that focus on investigative journalism.
For some, the risk is not worth it.
Many outlets have editorial policies which call for clear differentiation between news, analysis and opinion.
For example, the ABC publishes a broad mix of all three categories, but content that is considered analysis must still draw on immediate experience.
Australia has seen a string of high-profile defamation cases in recent years, including those launched by actors Rebel Wilson and Geoffrey Rush, and war veteran Ben Roberts-Smith.
According to Dr Collins, defamation cases arise in Australia about 10 times more often than they do in the United Kingdom.
"Australia has become a bit of a defamation magnet for people wanting to vindicate their reputations," he said.
"I think because the perception is that you're more likely to succeed in a case in Australia than in a place like the United States or the United Kingdom."
The Federal Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, on Wednesday described the balance defamation law seeks to strike.
"Collectively, we are all working to make sure that our defamation laws are right, that we can have freedom of discussion of political matters but at the same time, where it's warranted, protect peoples' reputations from unjustified attack," he said.
