Page:Greenwich v Latham (2024, FCA).pdf/26

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

a thriving community of men, women, boys, and girls. Now, put 100 trans women and 10 men on a deserted island. In 100 years you will find the skeletons of 110 men. Follow me for more science.

(c) "Good to see you telling the truth & sticking to your guns, mate. More politicians should try it [clapping hands emoji, thumbs up emoji]".

69 On 4 May 2023, Mr Latham posted a tweet which said "I can't win: I apologised here and now Alex Greenwich has referred this Tweet (and many others) to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board for action. He's obsessed with petty litigation against me for disagreeing with him".

70 Also on or about 4 May 2023, Mr Latham posted a tweet which said "Ultimately this is the great Greenwich crime: disagreeing with an entitled European Prince. Lawfare instead of sorting it out in the parliament to which we have both been elected. Should I take out an AVO for harassment? [four crying, laughing emojis]".

71 On 17 May 2023, Mr Greenwich's lawyers received a response from Mr Latham's solicitors at that time. That letter said, among other things, that Mr Latham declined the settlement offer in Mr Greenwich's solicitors' letter of 19 April 2023.

The "torrent of abuse"

72 Immediately following the publication of the primary tweet and then the DT quotes, Mr Greenwich was subjected to what Dr Collins described, not unfairly, as an "utterly hateful torrent of abuse and vitriol".

73 Much of this was received through the "feedback" service on Mr Greenwich's website, which was then sent as a message to an "Electorate Office Sydney" email address. Other communications were sent directly as emails to that address. The electorate office also received several voicemail messages and letters. Messages were also sent to Mr Greenwich's Facebook account. Often the communications were sent anonymously or using a pseudonym.

74 During his opening and closing submissions, Dr Collins took me to many examples of such communications, which were exhibited to Mr Greenwich's first affidavit.

75 The tenor of the messages varied. Many of them were vile or offensive and, in some cases, confusing. Some were threatening. Others were, as Mr Smark accepted, deranged. Some were all those things combined.

76 Communications received by Mr Greenwich and his electorate office after publication of the primary tweet, included:


Greenwich v Latham [2024] FCA 1050
22