Google to call friendlyjordies in Bruz court case

John Barilaro will appear before a NSW inquiry probing his appointment to a New York trade job. Photo: AAP
Jordan Shanks, the face of friendlyjordies, appears set to testify for Google as it defends defamation action from NSW MP John Barilaro, a court has heard.
Mr Barilaro has maintained his claim against YouTubeâs owner over videos titled Bruz and Secret Dictatorship published on the friendlyjordies channel in late 2020.
Thatâs despite the former NSW deputy premier and retiring MP settling with Shanks three weeks ago.
âThe present intention is that Google will be calling Mr Shanks,â barrister Lyndelle Barnett, for the tech giant, told the Federal Court on Friday.
That answer cleared up confusion for Mr Barilaroâs lawyer, who questioned what to make of Google saying it âreserves the rightâ to call Mr Shanks at trial in March.
âWe want them not just to reserve the right. If Iâm going to cross-examine Mr Shanks, thatâs going to be some work,â barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC said.
âI donât have any problem doing that, but if this is just some sort of empty threat, it shouldnât be allowed.â
Mr Barilaro launched the defamation case in May, alleging the Bruz video wrongly insinuated he was a âcorrupt conmanâ and had âso conducted himself in committing perjury nine times that he should be gaoledâ.
Shanks had planned to defend the claim but, on November 5, accepted some videos were offensive to the retiring MP and apologised in a negotiated settlement.
The videos had since been edited to remove allegations of perjury and corruption, Ms Chrysanthou said on Friday.
The friendlyjordies channel, created by Shanks in 2013, has 600,000 subscribers and 155 million views.
The claim against Google alleges it didnât act on Mr Barilaroâs pleas for the videos to be removed. The Monaro MP also says Googleâs publication was actuated by malice as it was for financial gain and contravened their own YouTube policies.
Google denies eight defamatory meanings, as defined by Mr Barilaro, were conveyed. If they were defamatory, Google says they were permissible under qualified privilege as a statement of a commentatorâs honest opinion.
It also relies on the video being a matter concerning an issue of public interest â a defence available to publishers as of July 1 this year.
-AAP








