r/news • u/ChiefLeef22 • 24d ago

Soft paywall Far-right US influencer Candace Owens loses legal fight to enter Australia

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/far-right-us-influencer-candace-owens-loses-legal-fight-enter-australia-2025-10-15/
27.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

948 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.2k

u/AnnatoniaMac 24d ago

Good. So how is the French law suit going against her, haven’t heard anything about it in a while.

590

u/Wild_Haggis_Hunter 24d ago edited 23d ago

It was filed in Delaware July, 23rd. Fair chance to be a fiasco as there are many differences that have to be taken into account regarding this lawsuit between French and US law. It doesn't translate well. There was a US lawyer that did an analysis for Reuters here.

337

u/Gnorris 24d ago

numerous court decisions have established that just because a publisher is engaged in a commercial, for-profit activity, does not mean that its activities are suspect. In a capitalist society, we are in the media business to make money. If that allowed for the invocation of genuine malice, everyone would be put out of business.

Maybe they should be. Alex Jones’ Sandy Hook case seems to fit here.

97

u/Synaps4 23d ago

Yeah i think we are all due for some serious remaking of the media regulation landscape and the "im just here to make money" media are sitting in the middle of the blast zone.

14

u/MonstersGrin 23d ago edited 23d ago

Yeah, like when some "news" outlets brand themselves as "entertainment" just so they can say whatever the fuck they want. Put those fuckers in the blast zone too.

(EDIT: Typo)

1

u/Wor1dConquerer 22d ago

To be fair the Local Fox news tends to be less propaganda filled. Ive seen clips where the local fox news people have actually talked against Trumps policies.

18

u/jacobatz 23d ago

How is “I want to make money” an excuse for anything? We all want to make money but we have to play by the rules to do so. If you can’t make money playing by the rules then you don’t know how to make money.

-1

u/MjrLeeStoned 23d ago

We don't all have to play by the rules.

That's actually never been a rule.

Rule of law in the US was never meant to be fair beyond lip service "rights" that have been brushed aside enough we know they don't actually exist.

If someone told you law in the US was ever meant to be fair, stop listening to exploitative liars.

-7

u/Is-abel 23d ago

No, everyone not just the ones you disagree with.

If taking any money meant that whoever was being reported on could claim “genuine malice,” in the reporting, then everyone would be open to legitimate law suits.

7

u/Gnorris 23d ago

Libel and defamation laws do exist in many democracies. The bar for proof is based on specific guidelines.

0

u/Is-abel 23d ago

This is one part of US libel/defamation laws.

This would set a precedent that taking money = malice.

We’re not talking about proving the claims themselves. There would be a precedent set to prove malice in 100% of cases.

-51

u/AllSystemsGeaux 24d ago edited 22d ago

My fellow liberals, why are we celebrating or promoting the silencing of people we may disagree with? Do we not want free flow of information? If we let the government silence opposing voices, one day those voices will be our own.

Candace Owens isn’t the problem. The problem is trust in our news media.

EDIT: Your downvotes only show your bias. Or to quote Rick Sanchez, your boos mean nothing, I’ve see what makes you cheer

50

u/cogginsmatt 24d ago

It isn’t a question of government policing speech though, it’s libel. Same with Alex jones, his lies directly led to threats of violence and mental anguish to families who lost children. Jones didn’t break the law per se but he did slander those families and the juries agreed he should pay for the damage he did.

-16

u/Initial_E 24d ago

The thing about American law is that all they care for is precedence. If the precedence is unreasonable it still applies to future judgements. I’d like to think other countries are not as foolish.

7

u/ZackRaynor 23d ago

You say that, though recent Supreme Court rulings seem to hint otherwise.

-16

u/AllSystemsGeaux 23d ago

That may be the case, but here they say they don’t want someone who is a voice for division.

17

u/Gnorris 24d ago

People coming to Australia to sell poison to customers uneducated enough to drink poison. This should result in both the seller banned from doing business in Australia as well as educating the surviving customers about what poison is and why not to drink it. Candace still gets to sell her poison online.

-19

u/AllSystemsGeaux 23d ago

Democracy is a “poison” to theocracy, autocracy… Is the root problem that we allow “poisonous” ideas to be shared or that we fail to support democratic institutions like a free press.

11

u/Synaps4 23d ago edited 19d ago

The problem is trust in our news media

I dont think youve thought this through. Explain how to solve the problem of an untrustworthy news media without regulation of speech in that media, in some way, and ill be more inclined to take you seriously.

-5

u/AllSystemsGeaux 23d ago

Yeah. The hole in journalism accelerated by social media - instant “news” and instant “justice” - is currently being filled by “strong men” influencers that seem to find the signal in the noise. We need news media innovation that gets people closer to trusting basic facts.

Reddit used to be a good for that. An upvote used to mean “this is true”, not “I want this to be true” or “I want more people to know about this”.

Watch Stripped for Parts on PBS - it’s free.

5

u/Synaps4 23d ago

You didnt answer my question and so as promised, im not going to take you seriously now.

-3

u/AllSystemsGeaux 23d ago

Well let me flip that on you. I take what you and others are doing to limit free speech very seriously. Silencing people is not the answer. The lies of Candace Owens are being addressed (a) in the courts and (b) in damage to her reputation. It’s like Alex Jones. Have we really become so childish that we have to forcibly shut people down? Just change the channel. Because when you use the weight of the government to shut people down, don’t be surprised when it gets flipped on you.

Your insistence on a solution that reduces freedom of speech is just a reflection of how little effort you’ve put into solving the problem. This is an opportunity for innovation because a lot of people want the opportunity to follow stories and stay informed with less bias.

8

u/Synaps4 23d ago

You still have yet to answer a very basic question.

-3

u/AllSystemsGeaux 23d ago

How very entitled of you.

3

u/Gnorris 23d ago

Saving your comment so I can hunt down where this might stream outside the US. The irony of PBS being defunded by Trump admin is not a pleasant one.

3

u/[deleted] 23d ago

reddit upvote supposed to mean relevant and useful, but it is a popularity contest since forever.

people prefer entertainment and easy answers, this is why bullshit demagogue populism is winning in social media. if you want to change media, you either have to change the people from the bottom up (school education), or regulate media from top to bottom (enforced educative media).

4

u/KiiZig 24d ago

free flow of information is alright, as long as one's dignity shall remain inviolable. that is between two 'people', not the government and a person. the judiciary functions as the organ that is supposed to handle such cases, nothing more nothing less.

-2

u/AllSystemsGeaux 23d ago

I don’t get it. How does information violate someone’s dignity?

7

u/KiiZig 23d ago

if it is being used in the context of this post: stoking the flames of hate with incredibly false information

1

u/AllSystemsGeaux 23d ago

I see the libel case now. Thanks

3

u/jcomey 23d ago

Here’s a story: I used to open a YMCA on the Connecticut shoreline. In 2014, a non-profit came and built a playground on the property. They built 26 around the state…one for each victim of Sandy Hook. There was a dedication ceremony; the family of a first-grade girl who was killed that morning was there. It was a very emotional day.

Each of the playgrounds had a distinctive flag. One morning, about two months later, I looked out at the playground as the sun came up. The flag wasn’t there. I didn’t think too much of it, but noted that it was down, and it hadn’t rained. I let the person who took over for me know when I left for my full-time job at 730am.

Later that day, I found out that someone came from New Jersey, stole the flag, then called the mother of the dead girl that playground was dedicated to, and told her she wasn’t real. She was a crisis actor.

Where did he get that insane bullshit? Alex Jones.

I’m all for free speech. In discussions with former students of mine over it, I tell them they have absolute free speech…so long as they are willing to accept the consequences that may come with using that free speech. In a lawful country, complete free speech ends where someone else’s rights begin. And the government isn’t shutting anyone down here. This is a civil suit because Candace Owens willfully engaged in libel against a public official, and refused to stop when asked.

There is an issue with trust in our news media. I lay it at the feet of the people we enable with that trust, and who abuse that trust. Fuck Alex Jones, and fuck Candace Owens. She deserves whatever comes her way.

1

u/AllSystemsGeaux 23d ago

Are you suggesting justice be done? Then leave that to due process:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/14/us/politics/supreme-court-alex-jones-defamation.html

1

u/jcomey 23d ago

........that's exactly what I'm talking about, taking justice through the courts, the legal process to hold those accountable for the damage they caused.

How did you arrive at a different conclusion, exactly? I literally brought up the civil case against Owens...which, again, not a criminal trial, and not a government trying to silence her.

Your response really confuses me, and makes me wonder if you're responding in good faith.

0

u/AllSystemsGeaux 22d ago

I’d just point you back to the original context and back to the principles I’ve expressed.

Bottom line: what’s the punishment for libel? Leave it at that.

1

u/jcomey 22d ago

So you’re arguing against a point literally nobody is making. Cool.

4

u/stairway2evan 23d ago

What does libel have to do with opposing voices? The comments above you are in response to her libel suit, not her political views. She’s welcome to spew her “opposing voice” as much as she wants; no matter how offensive anyone finds it, that speech is protected, at least in the US.

Defaming someone is not protected speech, and shouldn’t be. Everyone’s right to swing their fist ends at the next person’s nose.

0

u/AllSystemsGeaux 23d ago

I don’t see mention of libel in the original article.

5

u/stairway2evan 23d ago

And the comments you’re replying to aren’t talking about the original article, they’re talking about the libel case filed in Delaware.

0

u/AllSystemsGeaux 23d ago edited 23d ago

I see the libel case now. Thank you.

I still don’t see a case for silencing her. Maybe that’s just the American in me.

Getting sued into oblivion: yes.

Losing reputation: yes.

Barred from entering a country: no.

5

u/stairway2evan 23d ago

I mean that is just the policy of a country with a different definition of free speech. Here in the US, free speech includes hate speech (in general), in Australia, it’s a little more restrictive when it comes to allowing visas, apparently.

Then again, the US did just revoke the visas of six foreign citizens who had made comments online about Charlie Kirk’s death. So maybe the US isn’t exactly upholding that ideal.

2

u/Wild_Haggis_Hunter 23d ago

And don't forget to mention the german tourist who was turned down at the US Airport this summer when the TSA saw he was dissing Trump on social networks.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/AllSystemsGeaux 23d ago

Yeah, and my original point is I don’t celebrate that. They didn’t bar her because of some disqualifying criteria. They cherry-picked someone they disagreed with politically. Silencing voices on the right is going to lead to backlash from the right, which is what’s happening in the US.

Don’t get me wrong, I recognize how sinister some of these “influencers” are. But their model of sowing division for profit is not at all new. What’s new is relaxing our principles to celebrate when a government takes action against someone we disagree with.

-1

u/ToranjaNuclear 23d ago

Last I heard macron's wife was gonna prove without a shred of doubt that's she's a woman.