Nine Network Actually Sought a Court Order to Restrain Peter Schiff From Telling the Truth

Nine Network Actually Sought a Court Order to Restrain Peter Schiff From Telling the Truth

I tried for two years to get 60 Minutes to release their unedited interview with me, as I wanted the world to see the actual interview, not just the highly deceptive way Nine sliced and diced it. But for obvious reasons, Nine refused to provide me with a copy. However, once I sued them, they were forced to provide a copy in discovery. After I got it, I posted on Twitter that I would be making the unedited copy available for the public to see. In a panic, Nine went to court seeking an emergency injunction to prevent me from publishing the unedited video. Nine actually argued that the public should not be allowed to see “the inner workings of a broadcaster.” In other words, according to one of the largest news organizations in Australia, the public should not be allowed to know the truth, only the lies the media wants them to believe are true.

I also posted on X my intention to expose McKenzie and Grieve for the liars and frauds that they are, joking that I would make that my full-time career. Nine tried to enjoin me from doing that. They claimed I had no right to go on a vendetta against the journalists and wanted the court to prevent me from doing so. They did not want to stop me from spreading lies, but from exposing the truth. Nine thought it was fine for their ‘journalists’ to publish lies about me intended to destroy my reputation and business, but that I had no right to publish the truth about them as it might damage their reputations and careers. I guess they did not see the irony in their complaint.

Nine ended up withdrawing their complaint and paying my costs of the hearing after the judge warned them that forcing him to rule “risked damaging the reputations” of Nick McKenzie and Charlotte Grieve. I really wish he had not issued that warning and had just ruled on the motion. Not only do McKenzie and Grieve’s reputations need to be damaged, their careers need to be ended. They are doing a huge disservice to the public and are a disgrace to the profession of journalism.

  • Injunction Part 1
  • Injunction Part 2