DEFAMATION AND VULGAR ABUSE: YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELT LIKE ELDERBERRIES

In a famous scene from the Monty Python and the Holy Grail movie, an Englishman, posing as a Frenchman says, after a rather hilarious tirade against King Arthur and his companions, that “I don’t want to talk to you anymore, you empty headed animal food trough hopper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries”, much to King Arthur’s surprise.

In the age of social media and instant communication, people can often engage in long winded rants against people which are, in substance, not dissimilar to the exchange between King Arthur and the Frenchman in Monty Python, as highlighted above. Although, more often than not, the exchanges which take place on social media tend to contain less humour and artistic articulation, and rather, are crafted with a large quantity of expletives and vulgar and abusive language.

The question we are often required to advise upon, as part of defamation in the digital age, is whether the use of expletives, or abusive and vulgar language,amounts to defamation. The general principle is that the mere use of abusive or vulgar language does not give rise to a claim in defamation, although there is no distinction between vulgar and abusive language, and whether something is defamatory. Accordingly, whether a vulgar and abusive statement is defamatory,is to be determined in accordance with the usual principles of defamation, that is, whether the statement gives rise to a ‘sting’ which is capable of harming the reputation of a person in the eyes of another.

InPolias v Ryall [2013] NSWSC 1267, the plaintiff pleaded that the imputation that he, Mr Polias “Should be ashamed of himself for the thing she has done in his life” arose from the following statement –

“Lol, nick is f**king stupid. His mother is f**king stupid. What a dumb b*tch. How are people like this allowed to breed? Disgraceful, good riddance to bad shit.Nick you should be ashamed of yourself, for the human being you are”.

The Court found that above statement, that Nick is stupid, that his mother was stupid, and that he is disgraceful, and should be ashamed of himself, was not defamatory, of Mr Polias, because it was so devoid of any meaning, even though the statement might be insulting and offensive.

Accordingly,the Court allowed the defendant’s application to ‘strike’ out that imputation.

Likewise,Mr Polias also pleaded an imputation that “he was a scumbag, in that he is a contemptible person” on the basis of the following Facebook post –

“Scumbags gona scum”.

The Court also disallowed that imputation, on the basis that the Facebook post was mere abuse, and a did not identify the plaintiff due to a lack of particulars.It was for that reason the Court declined to grant leave to re plead an imputation arising out of that Facebook post.

Another interesting case is Kermani v Seervai [2021] NSWDC 449, where the plaintiffs pleaded imputations along the lines that they were ‘a queen bee’, a‘terminator’, a ‘mother f*cker’ and an ‘A licker (that is, short for ‘arse licker’).

The Court highlighted that the advent of social media and online publication had given rise to a vast increase in the use of insulting language and swear words,but that the issue is that swear swords and insulting language needed to be viewed in a realistic way, in the context in which it was used, and not reduced to a dictionary definition based imputation as to what, for example, a ‘motherf*cker’ is defined as.

In essence, putting aside whether or not a statement is insulting or offensive, it remains that the statement, when construed as a whole, must give rise to a meaning, and thus convey an imputation, which is more than merely insulting or offensive.

The Court, in Kermani v Seervai ultimately found that the imputations were not made out, and should be struck from the statement of claim.

The law of defamation generally, including whether or not a statement which is, on its face, abusive and vulgar, but potentially defamatory, requires an in-depth knowledge of the technicalities of the law of defamation. HFK Lawyers have a dedicated defamation legal team ready to assist you, wherever you are located in Australia.

If you have been defamed, have been served aconcerns notice, or are considering publishing material that may be harmful toanother person, contact us today by email at info@hfklawyers.com.au orby phone at 02 9307 8900, and we willbe happy to assist.

This article is intended as general information only and is not legal advice on any subject matter. By viewing this article,,the reader understands there is no solicitor-client relationship between the reader and the HFK Lawyers. The article should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a legal practitioner, and readers are urged to consult HFK Lawyers on any legal queries concerning a specific situation.