Robert Irwin‘s threat to sue Pauline Hanson over a satirical cartoon image of him that she used as part of a hit job on the Queensland government is a classic case of drawing attention to something that otherwise would have largely passed without much notice.
It is known as the Streisand effect. Barbara Streisand in 2003 sought to suppress publication of a photograph that inadvertently gave away the location of her private holiday residence in Malibu. In doing so she drew national and international attention to it.
The pictures still litter the Internet today.
The One Nation leader has what she calls a ‘Please Explain’ cartoon series she uses to poke fun at her political opponents. It can be marginally funny, but usually it’s not. I can’t imagine too many people bother to check it out all that often.
The Please Explain cartoons Pauline Hanson created have led to Robert Irwin sending a legal threat to sue. Above, their depiction of Irwin and Queensland Premier Steven Miles
Robert is pictured here with his former girlfriend Rorie Buckey at the GQ Australia Men of the Year Awards in Sydney on December 6
But by threatening to sue Hanson for using his image, Irwin has drawn all manner of attention to the cartoon. I, for one, would never have seen it.
And to what ends and why? For using his image in a way that wasn’t even treating him as the butt of the joke? Irwin was merely the vehicle for attacks on the state Labor government.
The cartoon depicts Irwin and Bluey – showing off the very best Queensland has to offer – only to be thwarted by problems with housing, youth crime and healthcare. Irwin’s character says: ‘I can’t believe this is the state of Queensland.’
Honestly, the young fellow should think twice before instructing solicitors to send a letter of demand. It really is a perfect example of the Streisand effect right here in Australia.
The wildlife advocate and reality TV star – and his lawyers, for that matter – don’t seem to understand the cartoon series is an example of satire and parody, creating a much higher hurdle to jump over when seeking to prove defamatory imputations.
I’m no lawyer, but what exactly was defamatory about the budget animation anyway? That Irwin would partake in a skit about Queensland without receiving a handsome fee for doing so? He doesn’t want others to think they too can use his image without the dollars rolling in?
Perhaps I should sue Irwin for forcing me to write an article defending Pauline Hanson – not exactly my bread and butter.
A few years back, Sky News host Chris Kenny successfully threatened defamation against the ABC over a Chaser skit in which he was the butt of the joke and their characterisation of him was vulgar.
Pauline Hanson (pictured) won’t mind the attention that Irwin’s legal threat is giving her
Robert Irwin (pictured) sent Pauline Hanson a ‘please explain’ legal threat over her cartoon
The public broadcaster apologised and paid out an undisclosed sum, even though the Chaser team certainly wasn’t happy about it.
But the Irwin case is very different.
For someone who makes a living out of being a good bloke and Aussie larrikin in touch with the common folk, calling for lawyers at 30 paces doesn’t necessarily fit with the public image he’s is going for.
And what did he think Pauline was going to do when she received the letter? Capitulate and fall over herself to say sorry? He clearly doesn’t know much about Hanson’s history in politics over the last three decades.
She thrives on free media attention and controversy to prop up her minor party’s capacity to get re-elected, picking fights with anyone and everyone who aligns themselves to lawfare and intimidation.
Unfortunately for Irwin, he has given Hanson exactly what she wanted in this instance. The only way he could make a bad situation even worse for himself would be to double down and follow through with his threats.
Suing Hanson would be just the sort of media circus she would enjoy in the run-up to Queensland and Federal elections, and he would be damaged by the attention, not her. And that’s regardless of whether he wins or loses in court.