A western Sydney teenager whose luxuriant mullet catapulted him to viral internet stardom is suing a host of media outlets for defamation for exposing him to ridicule.
Ali Ziggi Mosslmani, who styles himself "Ziggy", inspired a series of hair-themed memes last year after he was snapped dancing at an 18th birthday party in Hurstville with his now-famous coiffure.
Mr Mosslmani is suing Daily Mail Australia, The Daily Telegraph and KIIS radio in the NSW District Court for a series of articles online and in print that reproduced the image along with a selection of memes.
In a preliminary judgment, District Court Judge Judith Gibson said some of the memes included "photoshopped pictures of the plaintiff showing him on Mount Rushmore, on a dollar bill, as 'pin the tail on the donkey' and as a horse".
Judge Gibson said the articles "make the point that the plaintiff's striking mullet haircut has generated a great deal of interest on the internet, most of it humorous, and some of it in the form of clever observations, such as the 'Pythagoras' direction [digitally added to the plaintiff's head] in one of the memes".
Mr Mosslmani is suing the outlets on the basis that the stories conveyed a range of defamatory meanings, including that he is a "ridiculous person" because he sports a haircut variously described in court documents as "controversial", "silly", "ridiculous" or "horrendous".
On Tuesday, Judge Gibson struck out a number of other meanings pleaded by Mr Mosslmani's legal team, including that readers would believe he had permitted himself "to be photographed with a mullet hairstyle" and had accordingly "exposed himself to ridicule".
She said the "informal composition of the photograph does not in any way suggest some formal posing by either the plaintiff or the young lady he is dancing with".
Judge Gibson also rejected a claim that some of the articles defamed Mr Mosslmani by suggesting he was "hideously ugly".
Referring to digitally altered images in The Daily Telegraph article, Judge Gibson said "the closest any such picture gets to suggesting there is anything unattractive (as opposed to ridiculous) in the plaintiff's appearance is the photograph where a skunk has been added to the plaintiff's head".
"However, these photoshopped images need to be viewed in context of the whole of the [article]," Judge Gibson said.
"Viewed as a whole the [article] ... is commenting about his hairstyle being ridiculous, and this is not the same as saying that the plaintiff is ugly."
Professor David Rolph, a media law expert at the University of Sydney Law School, told Fairfax Media: "Exposing a person to more than a trivial degree of ridicule has been capable of being defamatory for centuries."
But he noted, "it sits rather oddly with defamation because it doesn't require disparagement of reputation, and reputation is the central interest protected by defamation law."
The parties return to court on November 17 for another preliminary hearing.
