Both Mr Hornery and Mr Shields have subsequently apologised for how SMH handled the story, with the former writing: “On the weekend, I wrote about the background leading to Rebel Wilson’s social media post revealing her new relationship with another woman. I have learnt some new and difficult lessons from this and want to be upfront about the things I got wrong.”

Mr Hornery stated: “I genuinely regret that Rebel has found this hard. That was never my intention. But I see she has handled it all with extraordinary grace.”

He observed that “it is not the Herald’s business to ‘out’ people, and that is not what we set out to do. But I understand why my email has been seen as a threat. The framing of it was a mistake.”

The journalist concluded that “the Herald and I will approach things differently from now on. We always take into consideration the extra layer of complexities people face when it comes to their sexuality”.

SMH has also been deeply criticised by its own staff, with an email noting that “here we are again – our newsroom has become the story”.

The email continued to note that, “with the ‘strike’ fiasco, we were a national laughing stock – but now we’ve attracted international attention. One doesn’t have to search far to find the common denominator in those editorial decisions”.

In conversation with Lawyers Weekly, Professor Paula Gerber of the faculty of law at Monash University emphasised the human impact of “outing” Rebel Wilson, saying that such “outings” used to be a quite common occurrence by the media.

VIEW ALL

Professor Gerber said that, “for example, in 1978, the Sydney Morning Herald published the name, addresses and occupations of the people who had marched in the very first Mardi Gras and who had been arrested”.

She continued, “this had dire consequences with marriages ending, people losing their jobs and being shunned by family and friends. In 2016, the SMH said ‘we acknowledge and apologise for the hurt and suffering that reporting caused. It would never happen today.’”

“For the SMH to claim that ‘We would have asked the same questions had Wilson’s new partner been a man’ demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the discrimination and persecution that LGBTIQA+ people have faced historically, and continue to face today,” she said.

Professor Gerber went on to say that “it is less common today, but there is obviously still work to be done in ensuring that everyone understands that when and how a person chooses to come out is their decision alone. It can be one of the biggest decisions an individual makes and they should never be pressured into doing it before they are ready”.

The legal framework to protect people like Rebel Wilson is fragmented, with anti-discrimination law not relevant in this situation. Professor Gerber said the newspaper does not face any legal liability under anti-discrimination laws.

Professor Gerber remarked that “the anti-discrimination laws protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity but only in respect of the provision of goods and services, such as education, housing, healthcare, etc.”

She observed that, whatever the SMH’s intentions, it was “not a violation of the Sexual Discrimination Act”.

Could Ms Wilson have an avenue in the context of bringing defamation proceedings against the SMH? Professor Gerber doesn’t think so: “Nothing the Sydney Morning Herald said would be the basis for a defamation lawsuit by Rebel Wilson. Identifying someone as being part of the LGBTQI+ community is not defamatory and, in any event, it is true.”

Professor Gerber suggested that “furthermore, after Rebel Wilson’s recent protracted defamation lawsuit against Bauer Media, which went all the way to the High Court, I doubt she is interested in any further litigation”.

Finally, Professor Gerber pointed out that there were potential areas for future law reform. She said, “we don’t have privacy laws that protect people from media publishing salacious gossip about them. So even if the SMH ‘outed’ Rebel Wilson, before she disclosed her relationship on her Instagram account, there is no law that they would have breached.”

Professor Gerber said: “More broadly, we need stronger protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. Most urgently, we need the SDA to be amended to prohibit religious schools from expelling LGBTIQ+ students”.

There are also lessons, Professor Gerber noted, for media outlets.

“I hope that the media will follow suit and reconsider how they engage with the community and report on LGBTQIA+ issues. All people have a right to privacy, and that privacy includes if, when and how to disclose their sexual orientation.

“I encourage the media to urgently undertake training about privacy, human rights, discrimination and the long history of outing LGBTIQA+ people – and why it is so harmful. Armed with such knowledge, I would hope that they will not treat any LGBTIQA+ person with the same disrespect that we have seen recently,” she said.

“It’s time for a new chapter, it’s time to do better. It will be a great day when the subject of someone’s sexual orientation is no longer a story.”