Members of a pro-Israel lobby group who complained to the ABC about Antoinette Lattouf have been harassed and vilified online since attempting to launch contempt proceedings against Nine newspapers, the federal court has heard.
The alleged harassment on social media platform X was said to have reignited after a court hearing last month in which the members accused editors, reporters and lawyers from Nine of breaching a suppression order in the Lattouf case.
On 25 June the federal court found the ABC breached the Fair Work Act when it terminated the casual broadcaster for reasons including that she held a political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.
On the same day the court heard an application from members of a pro-Israel lobby group to refer contempt proceedings against eight individuals from the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.
On Monday Sue Chrysanthou SC, for the applicants, presented a letter to the court containing confidential instances of “speculation, vilification and harassment” which have appeared on social media since Justice Darryl Rangiah heard their complaint.
Nine’s lawyer Tom Blackburn argued the letter was irrelevant and should not be admitted because any increased harassment of Jewish complainants is not the fault of journalists at the Age.
“Increased harassment, your honour, as we’ve said in our letter, is deplorable, but it’s not our fault, and this is just irrelevant material in our submission,” Blackburn said.
• Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email
Blackburn said the backlash was more likely to have come as a result of the judgment handed down on the same day in which Rangiah found Lattouf was sacked “to appease the pro-Israel lobbyists”.
“Well, we don’t know whether the material tendered this morning, your honour, was caused by this application or by the main proceedings,” he said.
The Lattouf judgment “gained far more attention than the hearing of the intervening party’s application”, Blackburn said. “So there’s no necessary connection at all with increased harassment.”
Rangiah accepted the letter as relevant to his decision.
The group alleges the Age breached a suppression order issued by Rangiah in February during the high-profile unlawful termination trial. Nine submits the suppression order does not apply to articles published before it was made, and has asked the court not to refer Nine for contempt.
The article exposed a coordinated campaign to have Lattouf removed from the ABC.
During the trial Rangiah reminded the parties about his suppression order, asking any media who may have published the names of some of the people who complained about Lattouf to comply with the order.
“I made a suppression order last Monday. The solicitors acting for the applicants who sought the suppression order have written to the court asserting that a particular media organisation has published articles which disclose the identities of those protected by the suppression order,” he said at the time.
Without admitting contempt, Nine newspapers removed the names of the people who had complained to the ABC on 18 March.
Blackburn told the court individual journalists are not responsible for publishing or taking down their own articles, and journalists Bachelard and Jaspan should not be respondents, alongside editors Patrick Elligett and Bevan Shields and their lawyers.
He also argued the Age newspaper does not control what is published on archival websites and social media, so any mention of articles which have been taken down is no fault of the respondents. Some archival websites have retained copies of the amended articles, including names of the complainants, the court heard.
“The other point is, your honour, that my clients don’t control the webpage archive,” he said.
“They don’t control [social media platform] X.”
Justice Rangiah reserved his judgment.
