News update! Man sues media for ‘ridiculing’ his mullet hairstyle after picture goes viral

A teen whose “dramatic mullet haircut” became an internet sensation after he was photographed at a party is suing several media outlets claiming he became the theme of ridicule.

Mosslmani’s lawyers claimed that he had been defamed as “hideously horrible” and that he was subjected to ridicule as an outcome of the coverage.

But in a preliminary judgment before the case would go to trial, district court judge Judith Gibson did not mean the teenager was not beautiful and said most of the opinions in the posts were of a comical nature.

She also found that saying a hairstyle was ridiculous was not exactly like saying the plaintiff was not beautiful.

The plaintiff’s dramatic mullet haircut has generated a great deal of interest on the internet, most of it funny, and a few of it in the sort of smart observations, like the ‘Pythagoras’ direction in one of the memes,” she said.

The picture was taken by a professional photographer Jeremy Nool in Hurstville, in Sydney’s west. The photographer said he had no idea it would generate as much interest. It was made into memes featuring creatures and famed landmarks.

Judge Gibson said Mosslmani’s case was “overpleaded” and seemed to be designed to “promise as many imputations as potential while simultaneously avoiding a defence of honest opinion or justification”.

The only imputation the judge let was that “the plaintiff is a man that is silly because he wears a haircut” that is contentious.

The plaintiff is entitled to plead an imputation of state – namely being a foolish individual for having such a hairstyle – together with an imputation amounting to an action. This imputation is fairly capable of being conveyed and will head to the jury”.

The imputation he was “hideously nasty” was rejected despite the headline saying the complainant had a haircut” that is “ridiculous.

He ruled the closest any photo that was such got to indicating there was not anything attractive in the plaintiff’s look was the photo “where a skunk has been added to the plaintiff’s head”.

“ugliness was not suggested by comparing the adolescent to a bust or a horse on Mount Rushmore on the part of the plaintiff”, the judge said.

“The plaintiff will not be compared to Frankenstein, or some other body that is hideously unattractive; his haircut continues to be criticised as absurd.”

The proceeding are recorded for further directions on 17 November.