Journalist Antoinette Lattouf was awarded A$70,000 and possibly more in damages after the public broadcaster wrongly dismissed her under Zionist lobby pressure for sharing a social media post critical of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, reports Joe Lauria.
Lattouf v. ABC ruling. Judge finds that Aust https://consortiumnews.com/2025/06/24/australian-reporter-wins-suit-against-abc-over-anti-semitic-post/
That just cost us over $1 million in tax money. That’s our money wasted on lawyers.
Could have saved a lot of money had they just admitted it was a political firing, and simply rehired her, pro-palestine views and all.
That’s our money well spent fighting against injustice and the corrupt interference in our country by Zionist extremists.
Uhh, no? Lattouf spent money fighting zionists. The ABC, and hence the Australian tax payer, was spending money defending zionism.
She won though. Therefore the money, having been spent, was not wasted was it.
Well, no. The money that got spent on lawyers and court fees was definitely wasted. The ABC could have issued an apology and made a reasonable offer of settlement without the huge bill to the taxpayer.
Or, you know…just not fired her in the first place. But that would have required not kowtowing to the Israel lobby…
deleted by creator
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
The ABC ran a bad case. It was bad from a legal standpoint. They lost it, and from the looks of it the judge didn’t have to think very hard to weigh up which way it would go.
It was bad from a moral standpoint. Even if they had been legally allowed to do it, it was obvious from the beginning that they were bowing to terrorists (namely: the pro-Israel lobby) by ousting an anti-genocide journalist.
In what world is it not a waste to spend resources on a case that is both legally and morally dubiously?
Edited: i thought i misclicked back instead of reply and thought i lost my words…
It can never be a waste to fight against corruption… it is simply “use”. The ABC was called to defend, not prosecute a case, and they lost. This is a WIN and i take exception to this outcome being descrbed as “a waste of taxpayer money”. The only thing the courts have less of than money is time. The dollars get spent regardless of the subject, and some issues (such as protections for free speech) really DO deserve as much time as possible being spent on them.
And hopefully encourage the ABC to not do shit like that again.
@DarkCloud Highly emotive, and objectionable headline. What is the purpose?
The author of the article works with the editor to determine the headline. It tells you what the article is generally about.
@DarkCloud I think it did some creative paraphrasing.
Not at all, the ABC’s own article mentioned they were pressured by “Lobbyists” to fire her after she posted anti-israel content to her Twitter.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-26/antoinette-lattouf-v-abc-verdict-unfair-dismissal/105459362
@DarkCloud But her post was NOT antisemitic. That was the claim of those who complained, and the ABC management caved like a stepped-on meringue.
I think that’s why it’s in quotation marks… Because it wasn’t antisemitic.
Being critical of something doesn’t even necessarily mean they are ‘anti’ anything. Criticism at it’s heart is ‘let’s do better, people’. It’s trying to help them
Antisemitism in common parlance means outwardly racist towards the Jewish ethnicity.
The comment I replied to said ‘anti-israel’ which is not antisemitism no matter how many fuckwits try to claim it is, and had nothing to do with my comment about the purpose of criticism in general.
